Apple plans to scan US iPhones for child abuse imagery

Post by mataug » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #41

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #29

This could backfire in a huge way. I think a lot of people, even EFF/privacy focused people are fine with a private company doing CSAM detection (or anything really) on uploaded user content since it is actually voluntary. Now that CSAM detection is being deployed to user devices including those previously sold without it, there's a motivation to circumvent/block it. Unless Apple is doing CSAM scanning 100% inside a…

> All it takes is one security researcher to publish a tool that creates millions of false-positives for the current dataset/model used by Apple & others to be useless. And even better: someone could create false-positives and just send them to people, or put them on websites. While you're watching funny kittens tumbling around, your iphone is calling the cops on you because it thinks you're watching child porn.

Post by BrianB » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #60

partiallypro wrote: post #14

I really don't see how this is going to end well, there could be perfectly innocent photos on someone's phone of their own children doing perfectly normal things that kids do. Like a kid running butt naked around the house, or a photo of something like a rash that is sent to a nurse friend for advice on what it is etc. I'm all for protecting children from being abused, but how are they going to filter what is normal…

> Like a kid running butt naked around the house... Thought it was buck naked — but that works too. :-)

Post by cdolan » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #11

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #5

Whose to say what is abuse? Are Caesar Milan tactics on a child abuse? This is outright dangerous beyond belief. Nobody is gonna wanna be a parent if you have to worry about your kid being mad at you and then posts something like that. IIRC there was a teenage girl that lied about her father molesting her back in the 2000s. No evidence, just pure hearsay. Dude was locked up for like 10 years. Now imagine that on a gr…

That would be false testimony, not hearsay. Hearsay ("John Smith told me he heard MeinBlut kidnapped the Lindbergh baby") is not allowed. Witnesses lying about what they saw and or participated in is allowed, although it can be lies. Sorry, and as for "what is abuse", these are looking for exploited children. There are a lot of questions here, the morality of mass surveillance, the risk factors due to hash collisions…

Post by yepthatsreality » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

Post by taylorfinley » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #74

Ancapistani wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The odds of This number is equivalent to generating 1 billion UUIDs per second for about 85 years." If we're talking about random files, sure. What if the files are intentionally created to match the desired hash? The malicious actor doing this could be a private party intending to disrupt your life, but it could also be law enforcement as a means of gaining access to your device when it would otherwise require a…

Couldn't someone that motivated come up with a dozen other ways to frame someone? This seems a little alarmist to me.