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

In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 430 posts

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#131

Post by zepto »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #118
whall6 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy doesn’t mean we can’t use our minds to foresee possible next steps.

The slippery slope argument isn't even really a logical fallacy. In fact, I can think of a number of circumstances where it turned out to be true. edit: here's an example of the slippery slope "fallacy" in action "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist."

It is a logical fallacy in that the consequences do not logically follow from the proposition. However that doesn’t say anything about whether they are likely to follow in practice, only that there is no logical proof that they follow.

In this case, the arguments against this mechanism are generatly slippery slope arguments - logic doesn’t guarantee the bad outcomes. However it’s quite reasonable to be concerned that the bad outcomes will happen because of the actors involved.

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#132

Post by midev »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #116
midev wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to have that discussion, I think it's critical and we need to update laws to protect privacy. You still don't get to be technically incorrect, though. You still need to know how courts work, if you want to participate in that discussion.

You have a lot of trust in your courts. Let’s hope it is not misplaced.

Not at all! Courts are a joke.

You still need to know the process, though. Images of police officers are not being used to convict CP charges.

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#134

Post by midev »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #127
midev wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know how discovery works in court? I'm guessing not. Once a hash matches, law enforcement would need a subpoena to access the raw image. If a person were to be arrested, that evidence would be turned over to the defense. It would be very obvious that a picture of a police officer was not child pornography. Are you under the impression people are jailed for hash collisions? Because that's not the case at all...…

I don't think the suggestion is that a hash of a police uniform will be used to convict of CP but rather the idea that a new law will be passed that - in order to protect the police from 'harassment' - will outlaw taking pictures of the police. So in that case in discovery the picture of a police officer would be evidence that you broke that hypothetical law. The technology deployed to protect the children opens up t…

> would be evidence that you broke that hypothetical law

Hypothetical situations are not an argument to real world discussions. Sure, if that happened, it'd be terrible. But, that's not happening....

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#135

Post by rblatz »

midev wrote: post #113
rdedev wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This client side scanning of local files can be easily extended to scan the whole device. That's why the eff was calling it a backdoor. All it takes is for the right govt to put the right preassure on apple. In a way it's kinda worse than a backdoor since your phone is actively reporting any suspicious looking files to the authority all the time on its own. The govt dosent need to actively look for it. Just add the a…

> This client side scanning of local files can be easily extended to scan the whole device Correct, Apple can access unencrypted files stored on your device. > That's why the eff was calling it a backdoor Accessing unencrypted files on a device is not a backdoor > actively reporting any suspicious looking files to the authority all the time on its own Yep, that's a problem. Not a backdoor, though.

What is your deal. You are out here arguing in bad faith all over this thread. What is your motivation?

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#136

Post by tumblewit »

This reminds me of 'Reflections on Trusting Trust'. The headline is so relevant here

> To what extent should one trust a statement that a program is free of Trojan horses? Perhaps it is more important to trust the people who wrote the software.

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#137

Post by pinum »

Someone1234 wrote: post #38

Apple's mistake is that they seemingly believe there is pushback because people misunderstand how it works. The reality is more nuanced: People understand exactly how it works, and how it works is that it is turn-key onboard spyware, that Apple pinky-swears isn't being used wrong today . For example if the scope/mission expands (e.g. foreign governments), suddenly you've created a drag-net for whatever "badness" is o…

About that "manual review"... Refer to pages 10 and 11 of the technical paper.

>The server then uses the decryption key to decrypt the inner encryption layer and extract the NeuralHash and visual derivatives for the CSAM matches.

This "visual derivative" term shows up repeatedly. To me, the implication seems to be that Apple doesn't look at the actual suspected image before deciding whether to proceed with a report. Instead, I infer that they only verify whether (as the device reports) the image's neuralhash is indeed present in the NCMEC database. If my understanding is correct, their "manual review" process actually provides no protection at all against collisions or erroneous database entries.

Further supporting this, on page 4:

>Apple reviews each report to confirm there is a match

It only refers to a match, not about whether the image appears to be illegal.

This makes perfect sense from Apple's perspective- who would want to be in the business of reviewing reports of probably-illegal images?- but it means that the references to a manual review safeguard would seem to be false reassurance. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#138

Post by timcederman »

akomtu wrote: post #91
ASalazarMX wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the slippery slope is not a fallacy, but the natural consequence of seeking more control. This feature can be horribly misused in the future, for example, to find people who have sent/received/downloaded Tiannanmen pictures, because instant messaging pictures can be automatically added to your albums. You can't trust a feature whose only impediment from being abused in the future is such pinky promise.

Pictures is just a pretense. Step #2 will be URLs of pictures that users send each other using the phone's keyboard. Step #3 will quietly expand the definition of a URL to any keyboard input. At that point, Apple will have a god's eye view into all communications of their users, be it over WhatsApp, Signal, SMS or an online forum. Imagine having a dashboard that shows in realtime with gps coordinates how many text me…

I started writing an explanation of how you're mistaken, and then I realised just how quickly you went from Apple using a very common method for identifying CSAM (which Facebook already uses, yet I've not really heard much in the way of complaints about that) to Apple wanting to listen for keywords in phone calls, and just how unlikely it is you'd reasonably think through my response.

Re: In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features

#140

Post by midev »

rblatz wrote: post #135
midev wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This client side scanning of local files can be easily extended to scan the whole device Correct, Apple can access unencrypted files stored on your device. > That's why the eff was calling it a backdoor Accessing unencrypted files on a device is not a backdoor > actively reporting any suspicious looking files to the authority all the time on its own Yep, that's a problem. Not a backdoor, though.

What is your deal. You are out here arguing in bad faith all over this thread. What is your motivation?

What's the bad faith? What's single thing have I said that is incorrect? It's not breaking E2E encryption. No one is locking people up for political photos. It's not using facial recongition.

I don't like FUD driving discussions. I think we need to have serious discussions about this technology. I think people that don't understand it shouldn't participate....

Post reply on HN