Live data from Hacker News

An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

github.com

181–190 of 451 posts

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good that you're principled enough to do that but you guys will be rounding errors in Apple's revenue. Most people don't even know about this and those that do, most wont care. Even of those who do know and do care, most aren't motivated enough to change their habits beyond writing a few angry words on a forum Apple are never going to read anyway. Those that do change their buying habits, yourselves, are by far…

I think the problem with your response is that you aren't proposing anything better. It just sounds like you're saying "give in, it doesn't make a difference anyway". That capitulating, "crabs in a barrel" attitude is why things are the way they are. The majority just sits around waiting for something to happen and for some miracle to happen; for a leader to show up, galvanize the masses to change their ways and save…

> I think the problem with your response is that you aren't proposing anything better.

That's because I honestly can't think of anything better. However that doesn't make my response invalid.

> The majority just sits around waiting for something to happen and for some miracle to happen; for a leader to show up, galvanize the masses to change their ways and save the day. At the same time you don't believe that will ever happen, so you stay complacent, non-active and immobile (physically and mentally).

I think the issue is more that most people are too busy with their own lives to give a crap about a theoretical problem that doesn't visibly and directly affect them. We've head leaders before and it didn't change people's attitudes. If Snowden couldn't influence people's behaviours then what chance does a few random posts on a niche message board have?

> Stop preaching futility and do something positive. Try and be the positive change you want to see. Just because you've given up doesn't mean you have to try and convince somebody else to give up. You're part of the problem.

That's a bit harsh. I'm just as free to post my views are you are to post yours. And if you can't be arsed to get off your seat and campaign for real change then you're in no position to delegate that responsibility onto me.

Also I think you misunderstand the point of my post. I'm not trying to talk people out of action. In fact I've explicitly stated otherwise when I said "It's good that you're principled enough" and "I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't follow through with your threat". I'm just expressing my expectations about the futility of it all. A futile action can still give ourselves comfort that we've done the right thing even if we know it will make no wider change: like how I always vote in each election despite my constituency being so overwhelmingly in favour of the opposition that my vote is literally meaningless.

If yourself switching manufacturer brings yourself comfort that you've done the right thing then that's reason enough to change. But the pragmatic truth of the matter is that it'll take more than that to influence a company as large and successful as Apple.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#182
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not so straightforward to not use Windows Defender if you are using Windows 10. You must edit group policies in quite deep to disable automatic scanning and startup. Google Drive includes backups of your phone, so it is not limited to Google Photos. Literally everything that is stored unencrypted on Google servers.

Disabling all of Defender is complex, but disabling automatic sample submission is easy. It's an option in the Security settings app, and you're even allowed to disable it during first time set up (or were, last I installed Windows 10). It nags you once, but you can ask it to stop. Besides, uploading unseen executable code and scanning photos are far from the same tech. They're very different things.

Every binary is executabale by default. Images are only subcategory. As malware, any file is potential threat. Also, I think disabling automatic sample submission does not disable hash upload, only full files.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#183
post #41

Honestly I'm glad to see a non-insignificant amount of people in tech take this seriously, especially when the goal Apple announces appears to be for the greater good. It can be hard to stand on the side that doesn't immediately appear to be correct. We have already lost so many freedoms for 'national security' and other such blanket terminology. Just be warned, there will be those that unfairly try to cast this as h…

> a non-insignificant amount of people in tech take this seriously We're all here to make ourselves feel good saying we Took A Stand. In reality, four weeks from now, do you think anybody will still be talking about it? I made this same mistake. I was pretty convinced that people were taking Copilot seriously, and that there was possibly going to be ramifications for Microsoft. I wasn't particularly looking forward t…

[flagged]

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#184
post #50

Related but slightly off-topic: am I the only one that thinks more technology is not the answer to catching crooks? Can’t the police do good old fashioned police work to catch people doing these things? Why does EVERYONE need to be surveilled for the 0.01% (or less?) who don’t behave properly. To further this point: why do we need cameras on every street, facial recognition systems and 3-letter orgs storing huge data…

For what it's worth, police funding in US rivals and exceeds military funding of other countries.

Asking in earnest: are you speaking in absolute terms or relative terms? That is, does the percentage of funding (as compared to the rest of the budget) exceed most other countries’ military funding, or just the absolute amount?

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#185
post #50

Related but slightly off-topic: am I the only one that thinks more technology is not the answer to catching crooks? Can’t the police do good old fashioned police work to catch people doing these things? Why does EVERYONE need to be surveilled for the 0.01% (or less?) who don’t behave properly. To further this point: why do we need cameras on every street, facial recognition systems and 3-letter orgs storing huge data…

> "Can’t the police do good old fashioned police work to catch people doing these things?" I'm a detective that works exclusively on online child sexual offences. The short answer to this is "no", although the question doesn't make much sense to me. Policing has always been near the forefront of technology. Perhaps you could expand more on what "good old fashioned police work" means, in this context?

Do you have any qualms?

For you does the CP protection end justify any means?

Where would you personally draw the line on mass surveillance by LE for the sake of your specific LE goals?

CP aside, are there other crimes that you feel should be folded-in to a dragnet like this?

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#186
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of Spyware Engine is a problem, not technical details of how current version suppose to work . Suppose to work because we have not idea what it will do. Did you see the source code? We are not that naive to believe for a second that this Spyware Engine will do what is claimed. This is simply viewed as calculated attempt to legalize Spyware Engine on a personal device covered by some bs story intended to…

I agree with you, but if you'd take the time to read my post you would see that I am arguing that it's not good even by their own claims! They talk a lot about complex crypto to protect privacy but the primary thing it's doing is hiding what apple is matching against, which shields them against accountability. I fully agree that even if the behavior were currently threading the needle it would still be an extremely b…

I've read this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28083838 and agree. Added to my favorites. Very good points.

>.. it would still be an extremely bad move.

My view that this should be considered not only as "bad move" but as "criminal activity" Reasons I've described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28096948

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#187
Somewhat offtopic, but the subject caused me to make a disappointing realization:

The most sure way for someone to obtain child porn images that won't trigger a hit in these known child-abuse-image databases would be for someone to take new photos.

Is there a reason we can be confident that these databases aren't creating a market for novel child abuse at a greater rate than they're taking abusers out of the community? Esp since presumably abusers are only a (small?) subset of people who view these images?

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#189
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was it ever a conversation in the first place? [..] I don't need others to understand my position What do you think the point of Hacker News is?

It certainly isn't to constrain one's expression of opinion to the well-trodded cliches and kowtows.

It also isn’t to bully people into agreeing with you, regardless of what valid or invalid arguments they may or may not have.

I’d suggest reading the HN guidelines one more time: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#190
post #144

Apple is forgetting the network effect of professionals that made them billionaires. I personally evangelized my clients in the past for years to switch to Apple ecosystem. In my view this is weaponization of personal devices on a mass scale with clear intent of normalization of surveillance state on a global level. The fact that this comes after NSO spyware investigation speaks volumes. They don't care about privacy…

The empowerment that you feel you once lent to Apple may no longer be part of their growth plan. Whether or not it actually mattered at the time.
Post reply on HN