This reminds me that a two OS market isn’t a healthy one for consumers. We could use more diversity.
postmarketos.org
An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
41–50 of 713 posts
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#42US Government: We suspect the person in this photo of committing a crime. Here is your subpoena, Apple. You are directed to scan all iPhone and iCloud storage for any pictures matching this NeuralHash and report to us where you find them.
Chinese Government: Here is the NeuralHash for Tienanmen square. Delete all photos you find matching this or we will bar you from China.
Apple has at this point already admitted this is within is capability. So regardless of what they do now, the battle is already lost. Glad I don't use iThings.
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should maybe read about the work [0], or just read the rest of what I said. Surrealism has nothing to do with the argument I made, so why do you bring it up? CSAM databases can by necessity not contain novel abuses, because they are novel. In fact, filtering by CSAM databases even indirectly /encourage/ novel abuses because these would not be caught by said filter. Catching CP hoarders does little to help the chi…
> Catching CP hoarders does little to help the children being exploited in the first place If there is no market for it, there might be less incentive to produce any more of it. Not that I believe we should all be continuously spied by people who merely pinky sweared to do it right and not abuse it.
I don't think market forces are what drive the production of CSAM. Rather, it's some weird fetish of child abusers to share their conquests. I'm sure you're aware, but when CP collectors are busted, they often have terabytes upon terabytes of CP.
But that's, I think, tangential - I don't understand pedophilia well enough to say something meaningful here.
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
A picture of child abuse is child abuse in that the abuse of a child was necessary to take the picture in the first place. If the picture had no grounds to spread, it would likely not have been made—no incentive. As such, the fact that the picture is able to spread indirectly incentivises further physical abuse to children.
That does simply not follow from logic. Child abuse existed before cameras. Edit: People are unhappy with this refutation, so a second one then. The claim, specifically, is that CP is CA because CP requires CA to happen. So a photo of theft is theft. A recording of genocide is genocide. Clearly absurd. Never mind the context that the pornography in my question is drawn, thus no actual child was hurt. Edit 2: The poin…
> Child abuse existed before cameras.
Therefore we shouldn't do anything about it.
While your comment is true, it does nothing to refute anything the previous commenter said. They are completely right. Also the spread of child porn increases the impact on the victim and should just for that reason be minimized.
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#45Why do people still think they have _any_ power over user-hostile corporations and its proprietary code? Apple can (and likely will) say they won't do it and then do it anyway. It's a proprietary platform. They already have it, now. All they are claiming is an excuse not to be caught in a certain way they wouldn't like at a later point.
This seems fatalist and goes against what we have learned from internet society: making a ruckus is exactly how you sway large companies.
[deleted]
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#46Why do people still think they have _any_ power over user-hostile corporations and its proprietary code? Apple can (and likely will) say they won't do it and then do it anyway. It's a proprietary platform. They already have it, now. All they are claiming is an excuse not to be caught in a certain way they wouldn't like at a later point.
There can always be leaks, anonymous sources that confirm something is still ongoing, despite what was publicly announced. Brand image is important.
Are you sure?
Here is a true story for you:
Company X claimed users voice commands never left their devices. Then someone leaked recordings of people having sex, commiting crimes, etc recorded from X devices. This was brought up by media. For every concerned user there were ten apologist trying to justify this behaviour and a week later everyone forgot this ever happened.
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#47I recently listened to a Darknet Diaries episode on messaging app Kik. This app is apparently being used by many people to trade child pornography. In this episode, there was some criticism expressed on how Kik doesn't scan all the images on their platform for child pornography. I would really like to hear from people who sign this open letter, how they think about this. Should the internet be a free for all place wi…
> Should the internet be a free for all place without moderation?
The better question would be: do you want an arbitrary person (like me) to decide whether you have a right to send an arbitrary pack of bytes?
Neither "society" nor "voters" nor "corporations" make these decisions. It is always an arbitrary person who does. Should one person surrender his agency into the hands of another?
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference a mile wide between moderating a service and moderating people's personal computers. Maybe the same thing that makes this hard to understand about iOS will be what finally kills these absolutely wretched mobile OSes.
> moderating people's personal computers This is done client side because your data is encrypted in their cloud. It won't be done if you disable cloud sync. If you just keep your cp out of the cloud, you're fine.
Apple can decrypt data stored on iCloud, and they scan it already it seems:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/01/09/apples-scanning-...
Which it what makes adding the client side functionality even more problematic. They can easily extend this to scanning all offline content.
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this absurd counter? Who’s talking about surrealistic drawings? We’re talking about actual material in real life, being shared by users and abusers. To be clear, I’m not supporting surveillance, just stating facts.
You should maybe read about the work [0], or just read the rest of what I said. Surrealism has nothing to do with the argument I made, so why do you bring it up? CSAM databases can by necessity not contain novel abuses, because they are novel. In fact, filtering by CSAM databases even indirectly /encourage/ novel abuses because these would not be caught by said filter. Catching CP hoarders does little to help the chi…
> Catching CP hoarders does little to help the children being exploited in the first place
This is completely untrue, since hoarders tend to often also be part of groups where images of still unknown abuse circulate. Those images help identify both victims and suspects and in the end help stop abuse.
Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology
#50Fixed:
Chinese Government: Here is the NeuralHash for some child abuse imagery, please scan this user's phone and tell us if it's found.
Apple: Sure we found it.
Chinese Government: this user has unpermitted winnie the pooh memes. Send them to an internment camp.