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

Post by modeless » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

dotBen wrote: post #81

modeless wrote: post #13

I don't understand the claim that this system improves their ability to detect anything. If it's really true that the system only works on data uploaded to icloud then apple could have easily just done all the scanning in the cloud, because icloud is not end-to-end encrypted. In that case, all this feature does is move the computational cost of scanning from Apple's datacenters to Apple's users, saving Apple money an…

Respectfully you've missed what this is. This has nothing to do with data sent up to iCloud - at that point not only can those photos be checked via hash they can be further reviewed if there is a positive/high degree match The issue is that this mechanism applies to photos (/data) on the local device that wouldn't otherwise make its way up to iCloud.

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

smnrchrds wrote: post #124

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…

And HN's mistake is thinking any of this will matter. Apple only cares about money, always has, always will. And I'm willing to bet they are going to continue beating their revenue and profit record quarter after quarter. When their actions do not affect the one thing they care about, why should they care what anyone says?

Post by xxs » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:58 AM UTC

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…

Post by jjice » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 6:06 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #75

tannerwj wrote: post #3

"the screeching voices of the minority" is how they refer to those who value privacy...

At least she didn't call them pedophiles... ...which is ultimately what they are going to try to do: label those who oppose this feature as being supporters of child abuse. It's a classic "if you're not with us, you're against us" argument.

Post by Osiris » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 6:09 AM UTC

midev wrote: post #134

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....