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

241–250 of 318 posts

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

#241

Post by dcow »

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…

It’s not just HN folks, go read the “open letter”.

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

#242

Post by himinlomax »

ostenning wrote: post #239
int_19h wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst thing about it is that CP possession is a strict liability crime in most jurisdictions. Meaning that prosecution doesn't have to prove intent - if they can find it on your machine, you're guilty regardless of how it got there.

But for any serious charge you need indisputable evidence, and usually lots of it, usually the threshold is quite high.. But in the United States the system is insane so I could be wrong

All the evidence required is that it is there.

Does not matter if someone else put it there without your knowledge. Or maybe it matters, but then it's on you (for all intents and purposes) to prove that it was without your knowledges.

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

#243

Post by himinlomax »

mthoms wrote: post #146
mikewarot wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hash matches are to be human reviewed. Until it proves too expensive, then a different AI system will do it instead. I have zero faith that it'll be a fully competent, well trained, well rested, well paid person will actually be doing these reviews in the long run.

If you actually think there is going to be a fully automated system dispatching police SWAT teams throughout the US without a manual (or judicial) review then.... I really don't know what to tell you.

A dodgy phone call from an unknown number abroad by a stupid teenager is enough to get a SWAT team to murder innocent civilians, what makes you think they'll be smarter when the "call" comes from a robot?

I mean, seriously, you're assuming as beyond obvious something that's demonstrably wrong RIGHT NOW.

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

#244

Post by himinlomax »

mthoms wrote: post #229
sithlord wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess its hard to believe that their is a world outside of the United States. Already do whatever it takes to pin some BS on someone that opposes them and has them executed. This would be no different.

I don’t understand. If the government can just claim you had CP without proof, then they can just… do that? They don’t need Apples system. Especially since anything flagged by this system is manually reviewed by Apple. So, there would exist counter-evidence for the govt claim. Don’t misunderstand, I see how this system is ripe for abuse. I was just commenting on the specific claim that there will be automated SWAT ca…

> If the government can just claim you had CP without proof, then they can just… do that?

The problem is that they can do whatever if you have CP. Emphasis on "have": you might not even know you have it, because all it takes for you to be guilty is for a forbidden bit of data to be on your disk or cloud account. How did it end there? Doesn't matter much. It's unlikely you'll be convicted if someone else maliciously puts CP on your drive, but it's extremely likely your whole neighborhood will know about it before it's settled. Think about that.

> They don’t need Apples system.

Apple's system makes it sure that whenever someone puts CP on someone else's account, it rings the police and starts the nightmare. Without it, there's a few extra steps that make the nightmare much less likely to happen in the first place.

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

#245

Post by jjcon »

mshroyer wrote: post #221
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…

My MacBook Pro is overdue for an upgrade, and I literally ordered a Framework laptop (on which I plan to run Debian) partially in response to this announcement.

Wow I’m actually looking at framework right now as well after this announcement- my 2015 pro has been great but the trade offs are just too high

I wonder if framework will have a mysterious bump in sales because of this

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

#246

Post by least »

twobitshifter wrote: post #43
radicaldreamer wrote: post #30

This system is likely closely related to full encrypted E2E iCloud backups: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...

Were iCloud photos already scanned CSAM? In the on-device system, if you're not using iCloud are the photos scanned? If that's true, as an iCloud user you are exactly as likely to be charged with a crime based on your photos as you were before, but you now get E2E encryption. Obviously I'd prefer E2E without any scanning. If I wanted to upload a pirated mp3 to icloud, I wouldn't want the RIAA knocking on my door. How…

The entire reason to encrypt data before transferring is to preserve privacy of the individual, which is completely irrelevant when you have a system in place to scan everything before it ever gets uploaded.

It's like living in the glass apartments of Yevgeny Zamyatin's We but still thinking we're preserving privacy because we put our items into an opaque box.

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

#247

Post by p2t2p »

antpol wrote: post #161
dane-pgp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"it would be a shame if AppleTV+ won't get license extension for that popular show, isn't it"

There's this Apple TV+, a subscription for Apple's originals. I think in relatively short amount of time it'll turn into "It would be a shame if we banned from our Apple TV platform"

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

#248

Post by jeltz »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #69
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…

> We don't even mention the giant logical leap from finding someone possessing CP to automatically considering them a child molester, yet someone posessing an action movie is not considered a murderer. Filming an action movie does not require actually murdering people.

And neither does producing child porn. Drawn child porn is banned in most countries.

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

#249

Post by nerdponx »

runlevel1 wrote: post #111
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So the attacker only needs to get access to your iCloud. Your iPhone will happily sync down photos uploaded elsewhere. You don't have to be paying for iCloud, either. There's a free tier, so I'd imagine almost all iPhones are using some tier of it. iCloud account break-ins aren't exactly rare. An accusation, even if false, could ruin an innocent person's life.

Not only is there a free tier, but the iPhone defaults are cleverly configured so that you quickly fill it up with random junk on your phone, and feel pressured into paying for more iCloud storage, because the default sync behavior is so non-obvious, and the settings to disable it are buried.

I know multiple people (most of them in their 50s or older) who started paying for iCloud because they thought it was their only option.

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

#250

Post by [deleted] »

samatman wrote: post #210
gonehome wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that's why they have some threshold that moves the false positive rate to one in one trillion. The iMessage bit is different - it's only on device, only on child accounts, and only alerts parents. It's more akin to a parental control feature than anything else.

It was pretty dumb of Apple to announce both of these things at the same time. They have nothing to do with each other, and I've seen a dozen people on HN confuse them. If the message is getting muddled here, it will be hopelessly conflated in less technical circles. I'm concerned and upset about the CSAM filter for all the reasons that keep hitting the front page, but don't care about the opt-in parental controls at…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN