Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

blog.quintarelli.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 318 posts

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#81

Post by slg »

cblconfederate wrote: post #78
slg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are still falling into the same line of thinking here. The person isn't arrested because we assume they are a molester. They are arrested for possessing illegal material. Your argument here really sounds like you are suggesting that CP should be legal and it is the action of molesting that should be illegal. I don't think you would find many people who agree with that. Society has decided both are separate crimes…

> Society has decided both are separate crimes Actually it's legislators and the courts that come up with these laws and they are complicated. The question is if these laws reduce child abuse or simply increase spying, and in the end what is the acceptable balance between these two.

Legislators are a proxy for society. Do you believe that if you polled the US that any sizable portion of the country would be in support of legalizing CP?

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#82

Post by cblconfederate »

slg wrote: post #81
cblconfederate wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Society has decided both are separate crimes Actually it's legislators and the courts that come up with these laws and they are complicated. The question is if these laws reduce child abuse or simply increase spying, and in the end what is the acceptable balance between these two.

Legislators are a proxy for society. Do you believe that if you polled the US that any sizable portion of the country would be in support of legalizing CP?

In liberal democracies legislators also protect fundamental rights from the whims of the majority.

> if you polled the US that any sizable portion

No, but they also would agree to that they should have an option to keep their data privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff?

For example the case of virtual CP has an interesting legal history https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#83

Post by slg »

cblconfederate wrote: post #82
slg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legislators are a proxy for society. Do you believe that if you polled the US that any sizable portion of the country would be in support of legalizing CP?

In liberal democracies legislators also protect fundamental rights from the whims of the majority. > if you polled the US that any sizable portion No, but they also would agree to that they should have an option to keep their data privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff? For example the case of virtual CP has an interesting legal history https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-c…

>No, but they also wouldn't consent to having no option left to record their thoughts privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff?

It is fine if this is your argument, but you don't have to wrap this argument in with the very legality of CP. You can acknowledge something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated dragnets to find people guilty of said crime.

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#84

Post by chongli »

lamontcg wrote: post #60

> But when a backdoor is installed, the backdoor exists and history teaches that it’s only a matter of time before it’s also used by the bad guys and authoritarian regimes. Problem is that this scanning is necessarily fuzzy and there is going to be a false positive rate to it. And the way that you'll find out that you've tripped a false positive is that the SWAT team will knock your door down and kill your dog (at a…

This really has been decades in the making, hasn’t it? Apple is only adding the latest piece of the puzzle. The seeds of everything you’ve described were planted years ago.

How did we get here? How did everything become so politicized and polarized? How did law enforcement become so militarized? How did we as a society become so terrified and distrustful of our neighbours?

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#85

Post by [deleted] »

Asmod4n wrote: post #38
cblconfederate wrote: post #15

Apple will release this in their desktop pcs. The major consequence of this is that, a year down the line, microsoft will also be compelled/forced to join this "coalition of the good". After all, they already scan all your files for viruses, it would be a shame if they didn't scan for anything that is deemed incriminating and also call the cops on you. Of course, the children are being used as a trojan horse again. W…

Microsoft already does this. „Microsoft removes content that contains apparent CSEAI. As a US-based company, Microsoft reports all apparent CSEAI to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) via the CyberTipline, as required by US law. During the period of July – December 2020, Microsoft submitted 63,813 reports to NCMEC. We suspend the account(s) associated with the content we have reported to N…

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#86

Post by dane-pgp »

opinion-is-bad wrote: post #70
lamontcg wrote: post #60

> But when a backdoor is installed, the backdoor exists and history teaches that it’s only a matter of time before it’s also used by the bad guys and authoritarian regimes. Problem is that this scanning is necessarily fuzzy and there is going to be a false positive rate to it. And the way that you'll find out that you've tripped a false positive is that the SWAT team will knock your door down and kill your dog (at a…

Stochastic domestic terrorist is not a term I ever expected to read, but it seems very fitting for the “data-driven” (but generally poorly evaluated) future we find ourselves drifting into.

"Stochastic terrorism" has been a popular term for a while[0], but it usually refers to the actions carried out by individuals, not government agents. Ironically, though, the word "terrorism" itself originally referred to the actions of a tyrannical government against its own citizens[1], so perhaps the definition has come full circle.

[0] https://www.dictionary.com/e/what-is-stochastic-terrorism/

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/history-of-the...

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#87

Post by gjsman-1000 »

734129837261 wrote: post #51

It'll start with protecting children. We all want to protect children, don't we? Why do you want children abused? Are you a child abuser, what do you have to hide? Next it's elderly people. We don't want our forgetful elders to get lost, do we? What if grandma wanders off but is in someone's picture, surely you want the police to know right that second where she is? Next up, terrorists! Four adult brown men in an unm…

Remember that it only scans against a known database of already found content, and does not try to find new content.

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#88

Post by dwaite »

734129837261 wrote: post #51

It'll start with protecting children. We all want to protect children, don't we? Why do you want children abused? Are you a child abuser, what do you have to hide? Next it's elderly people. We don't want our forgetful elders to get lost, do we? What if grandma wanders off but is in someone's picture, surely you want the police to know right that second where she is? Next up, terrorists! Four adult brown men in an unm…

> It'll start with protecting children. We all want to protect children, don't we? Why do you want children abused? Are you a child abuser, what do you have to hide?

To be clear, this is continued enforcement for years-old regulation. The feature is only enabled in the US where it is required.

The implementation is changing from cloud-based matching (which requires photos to be readable by their cloud infrastructure) to local based matching with threshold tokens (which would allow them potentially to be in compliance while making the system E2E encrypted w two additional key release mechanisms (key escrow via separate audited HSM systems, the given threshold disclosure of the image encryption key)

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#89

Post by lancemurdock »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #79

So this new Apple stuff has made me decide not to buy an M1. I'm leaning Framework laptop. For my phone though... no idea. My iPhone is honestly such a solid piece of tech. I don't _want_ to go Google either... so what else do i have? I know lots of people run de-googled Androids, which i guess works, but i'd prefer to avoid them entirely. Is there anything that works? edit : I know of the Purism phone ( https://puri…

commenting here as I share the same exact sentiment. I guess I am going to look into LineageOS which falls in the de-googled category but im not sure I am in love with that idea.

edit: Whoa, 2K for that purism phone. fuckin' a.

Re: Apple’s new abuse prevention system: an antritust/competition point of view

#90

Post by gjsman-1000 »

flutas wrote: post #73
u10 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> possessing CP to automatically considering them a child molester, yet someone posessing an action movie is not considered a murderer That's specious reasoning. Someone who posesses an action movie likes action movies, while someone who posesses child porn likes child porn. One is ok, the other is pretty vile and illegal for a reason. I don't agree with Apple on this but let's be clear on what is and what isn't

> Someone who posesses an action movie likes action movies, while someone who posesses child porn likes child porn. Unless it's planted. [0] Or sent to you. [1] Or (farther out there) happens to be embedded on a site you visited and ends up in your browser cache. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/world/europe/vladimir-put... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/nyregion/alex-jones-sandy...

It only scans images in your iCloud Photo Library. Not paying for iCloud? No scanning. Not in your photo library? No scanning. And even then, only for known content, not new content.
Post reply on HN