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

281–290 of 430 posts

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

#281

Post by speleding »

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…

> A cryptographic hash + file size combo is unlikely to have a false positive within our lifetime

The chance of a "technical" false positive is tiny, but they need to look all false positives: If some joker sends you a lewd picture through WhatsApp, WhatsApp by default saves every picture to your photo library, then you are now on the naughty list.

Good luck trying to explain yourself out of that one.

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

#282

Post by anm89 »

whall6 wrote: post #92
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.

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

I'm surprised to hear this falsehood being repeated here. There is nothing inherently fallacious about slippery slope arguments. Like almost all rhetorical tactics they can be used fallaciously. The fact that slippery slope is not inherently fallacious is very well documented in the academic literature on rhetoric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

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

#283

Post by anm89 »

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."

Not only is it 'not really' a logical fallacy, it really is not a logical fallacy. Check my post on the parent for references.

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

#284

Post by zimpenfish »

0xy wrote: post #273
zimpenfish wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there are enough hash matches, Apple apparently gets to look at all the pictures on the phone. Not according to the technical summary PDF they released[1], "Only those images that have a voucher that corresponds to a true CSAM match can have their vouchers’ data decrypted [...] Even if the device-generated inner encryption key for the account is reconstructed based on the above process, the image information ins…

This is spin by Apple, driven by ignorance or deliberately misleading statements. NCMEC's database contains images that are not CSAM, not illegal and are not even borderline (grey area). The fact there is a match in NCMEC's database does not mean the content is CSAM. It does not even mean it's illegal. In fact, it doesn't even mean there's a single person in the picture frame. And no, this is not theoretical. NCMEC's…

> NCMEC's database contains images that are not CSAM, not illegal and are not even borderline (grey area).

Got a handy link about this? A quick search doesn't show anything obvious.

> This is spin by Apple, driven by ignorance or deliberately misleading statements.

The claim was that Apple got access to all the pictures on the phone which isn't correct according to their technical summary. Nothing to do with the validity of NCMEC hashes.

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

#285

Post by ptero »

peakaboo wrote: post #249
smsm42 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any reasonable way here. Either somebody looks at the images - i.e. they have some underpaid poorly trained grunt to look at horrible abuse images which is probably illegal to look at whole day, having about 3 seconds to make a decision on each - or what they're doing is just a sham, "Did the computer say 'it matches'? Yes it did! Review complete, match confirmed!" I don't see any non-horrible way of doin…

People keep trading away privacy for convenience. We won't have any privacy left if we continue to go down that road. People need to start looking at these tech giants with extreme scepticism. Like we do if companies are from China. We need to think about our American companies the exact same way, and stop trusting them to care about our privacy.

> We won't have any privacy left if we continue to go down that road.

If people look at today's state (phone movement tracking, voice capture, cameras and face ID, etc.) from the mental model of 30 years ago, they would see neither privacy nor freedom. At all.

Sadly, it is not the case of preserving what we still have, if we want freedom and privacy we will have to reacquire them. And a lot of the price will have to be paid in blood.

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

#286

Post by mung »

sharken wrote: post #253
mickotron wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make the premise so innocuous that it would seem unreasonable to object, eg who would object to keeping kids safe? However it's what comes after this, the slippery slope of what to enforce and not. The genie doesn't go back in the bottle.

Exactly. It's the same argument when Corona contact-tracing was discussed and later implemented. First using paper forms and later using apps. Why would you object to limiting the spread of the Coronavirus ? Fast forward to the present where law enforcement in Germany, Australia and Singapore have used contact-tracing for other purposes. So no to this plan from Apple, they must discard all plans of client-side scanni…

Could you please expand on the other uses of contact tracing in those countries?

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

#287

Post by john_minsk »

jimbob45 wrote: post #191
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…

I disagree. Google announced the same thing for Google Drive and didn’t receive this level of pushback. If you’re Apple, the only way that’s possible is if you explained it badly (i.e. differently than Google did). I’m guessing their real prerogative is to keep unlawful content from ever reaching their servers. You wouldn’t know that from reading their press releases though.

Why wouldn't they show a pop-up on the phone highlighting which images may be problematic and that report is being sent to the government? I might change my mind on uploading these things to my iCloud. Can't wait for all examples of false positives that will surface.

Why wouldn't they delete them directly, but rather send report to the government?

Why wouldn't they go even further and if image detected on the webpage that is problematic => It doesn't allow it to get to my filesystem either, so that I don't get into trouble if for some reason police decides to search my laptop.

All relevant questions. Answer is the only one: so that when police knocks on your door you were blissfully unaware.

Quite honestly this is all too sad. Again this argument about CP that everyone will buy, but which doesn't work in the wild. There are some bad people out there, but if these people are into buying or creating CP => they will rarely upload it into iCloud. Especially now, when everyone knows Apple is looking for it. So they will go even deeper into hiding, while everyone else will have to live with devices that are spying on them...

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

#288

Post by ratww »

midev wrote: post #140
rblatz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

You have repeatedly misrepresented other people's viewpoints in order to win this argument. Maybe you have completely misunderstood what the discussion is about, but since you're doing it repeatedly and have been called on it multiple times, it is fair for others to assume bad faith.

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

#290

Post by Johnyma22 »

zimpenfish wrote: post #209
dannyw wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is especially important given that NSO Group's Pegasus' works through sending multimedia iMessages/WhatsApps with exploits. The former auto-uploads to iCloud, and the latter can be configured to auto-upload all received media to iCloud. It almost sounds like a feature Apple is building to explicitly support the imprisonment of dissents through tje false planting of child pornography. What the actual f--k?

> It almost sounds like a feature Apple is building to explicitly support the imprisonment of dissents through tje false planting of child pornography. But you can already do this without these changes - cf the UK police officer currently under investigation for having CP on her phone that someone else sent her and (she claims) never opened. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/02/former-polic...

I like to think this case will call for reform in these laws.

"Williams was sentenced to 200 hours of unpaid work and placed on the sex offender register for five years, which damages her chances of getting another job.

Williams completed her community service in a charity shop, and having finished the hours the court ordered her to do, returned to volunteer further."

Post reply on HN