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

101–110 of 318 posts

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

#101

Post by windthrown »

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…

The Pinephone running something like Ubuntu Touch (UBports) or PostmarketOS is something to keep an eye on but it is still in heavy development and in my option not quite a reliable "daily driver" yet.

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

#102

Post by White_Wolf »

gonehome wrote: post #58
least wrote: post #28

There is no such thing as a trustworthy third party and even trusting yourself is questionable at the best of times. We are constantly balancing a bunch of different considerations with regards to the way that we compute, purchase devices, and utilize services. Security and privacy are of course important, and Apple to date has had a fairly good (if shallow) track record in this regard, at least in the United States.…

> "As mentioned in the article, this does absolutely nothing towards protecting children other than directing all but the biggest idiots towards platforms that can't be linked to them, which I'd imagine, they already are." I suspect you're more wrong than you think about this. People share large volumes of CSAM through lots of different services - I knew someone who worked on the problem at Linked In (!). HN likes to…

I would say most (if not all) know how easily you can change the scope of a database like this(like you said yourself) to check for other inconvenient terms, links, memes, etc that do not "toe the party line"(whether is eastern or western - I don't care) and shut down inconvenient discourse.

The point is: This is too easy to abuse.

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

#103

Post by dane-pgp »

ohazi wrote: post #97
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For now.

Just as "for now" it doesn't try to stop copyright infringement.

Seemingly every aspect of digital technology, from search engines to DNS providers, has been co-opted into the fight against piracy, so I wouldn't be surprised if the media industries started threatening Apple with "contributory infringement" suits if they don't re-purpose this technology for them.

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

#104

Post by Grazester »

ribosometronome wrote: post #44
TrevorJ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical of the claim that MS has been A: scanning files on local windows machines and B: forwarding anything concerning to law enforcement. That's a fairly extraordinary claim, and I would like to see the evidence.

Microsoft hasn't been scanning files on local machines but Microsoft has been doing essentially the same thing Apple has been for years -- they pioneered it with PhotoDNA back in 2009. It's been in use with OneDrive since back when it was called SkyDrive ( https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/unfortunate-truths-about-child... ). Apple's implementation is scanning images 1) stored on iCloud or 2) in Messages if parents turn…

Ok but this is not Windows, Which the op stated

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by gonehome »

White_Wolf wrote: post #102
gonehome wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "As mentioned in the article, this does absolutely nothing towards protecting children other than directing all but the biggest idiots towards platforms that can't be linked to them, which I'd imagine, they already are." I suspect you're more wrong than you think about this. People share large volumes of CSAM through lots of different services - I knew someone who worked on the problem at Linked In (!). HN likes to…

I would say most (if not all) know how easily you can change the scope of a database like this(like you said yourself) to check for other inconvenient terms, links, memes, etc that do not "toe the party line"(whether is eastern or western - I don't care) and shut down inconvenient discourse. The point is: This is too easy to abuse.

Being specific with the arguments and addressing the nuance matters imo.

Most of the HN responses are dumb, get the details wrong, and don’t take the trade offs seriously. That kind of thing causes me to dismiss them entirely.

There are legitimate arguments and risks which I’d concede, but they’re not what most people in the comments are talking about.

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

#107

Post by [deleted] »

chongli wrote: post #84
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?

[deleted]

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

#108

Post by mpol »

gonehome wrote: post #96
paul_f wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems naive, there are always false positives

It’s not naive, it’s math.

It's not a math problem, it's a human problem.

suppose you have a partner who is a 'petite' woman of 34. She enjoys posting nudies on a website, but without her face in that picture. Someone who collects child porn downloads it, because he enjoys that picture. A year later he gets caught by the police and all his pictures get marked as 'verified child porn'. Suddenly you get marked as owning child porn.

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

#109

Post by slg »

cblconfederate wrote: post #99
slg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated But there is a clear tradeoff between the two so saying that would be a useless platitude. If we really see the internet as an extension of our vocal chords, then we should have individual rights to it, especially considering the fact that the internet infrastructure is not provided by the governments themselves, only the spying is.

I don't know what to say to you if you consider someone voicing opposition to this move by Apple as a "useless platitude" if they don't also believe that we have a constitutional right to post CP on the internet.

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

wizards420 wrote: post #74

For another thought on how easy this could suffer from scope creep, iOS does (did?) store whole-app screen captures as PNGs for use on the app switcher, etc. If this is already scanning photo libraries locally, just add the temp dir for app screen captures and they're effectively monitoring your screen too.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN