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

281–290 of 318 posts

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

#281

Post by panda88888 »

For me the biggest concern is not that Apple is scanning the images for $BAD_STUFF but rather, now that the scanning occurs on my device instead of Apple cloud servers. The trust has been eroded. I can understand Apple scanning images on their servers (although I don’t think Apple should). However, running the scan on device is taking it too far, even if the assertion is that only images that would be eventually uploaded is scanned. Apple promised security and privacy on their devices, and this breaks the trust. Now I question their future software roadmap, such as:

1. Will the scanning come to MacOS? 2. Will the scanning start to include additional $BAD_STUFF, such as political censoring and/or even other files (video, document, etc.)

I really like Apple hardware. The iPads and the M1 Macs are awesome, but this news makes me hesitant to stay in the Apple ecosystem and will be looking at alternatives. I already run Linux desktops, and I’ll probably move to Linux on laptop.

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

#282

Post by zeroimpl »

It seems Apple only applies this if you sync photos to iCloud. Isn't the solution just to not use iCloud? I've personally never used iCloud sync for photos, am happy enough managing the files myself. Demanding that Apple allows you to use iCloud to host illegal pictures seems a bit entitled to me.

I am concerned about the slippery slope of if they start scanning files that were never going to go through their servers in the first place though.

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

#283

Post by mthoms »

himinlomax wrote: post #243
mthoms wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those prank SWAT calls are (a) from a human and (b) based on the assumption of IMMEDIATE risk of death/injury. Furthermore, (c) the CP scanning implementation itself requires human review.

So no, under the proposed implementation (and current judicial requirements in the west) robots dispatching armed police to kill pets or people without ANY human oversight because of a situation that is not time sensitive is mere fantasy.

Don’t misunderstand, I am against this whole thing for the reasons many others have well articulated in this thread.

But the claim that robots are dispatching armed police without any human interference RIGHT NOW is provably wrong.

Show me one incident where this has happened already and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice.

And yes, the judicial rules and Apples implementation could change in the future. That’s certainly a risk but is not the case RIGHT NOW. I mean, seriously?

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

#284

Post by Heliosmaster »

zeroimpl wrote: post #282

It seems Apple only applies this if you sync photos to iCloud. Isn't the solution just to not use iCloud? I've personally never used iCloud sync for photos, am happy enough managing the files myself. Demanding that Apple allows you to use iCloud to host illegal pictures seems a bit entitled to me. I am concerned about the slippery slope of if they start scanning files that were never going to go through their servers…

One of the major concerns that I've seen arising around here is the question "what's stopping Apple from doing this even without iCloud?". Once you open Pandora's Box, there is not going back.

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

#285

Post by mthoms »

himinlomax wrote: post #244
mthoms wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

This is plausible and exactly why I oppose this system.

The only argument I made was against the claim that fully automated police dispatches will occur because of this system (in the west).

Making outrageous, tinfoil hat level claims does not help our collective argument against this system.

It just makes us look like paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Let’s make coherent arguments (like the one you made above) instead of fantasy ones.

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

#286

Post by zepto »

8note wrote: post #279
zepto wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? What behavior do they want them to go after?

I imagine the IRS for taxes

Very amusing, although these companies pay their taxes.

The problem isn’t with them, it’s with the loopholes that let them pay less than people would like.

The IRS can’t do anything.

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

#287

Post by zepto »

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.…

> Under no circumstances is it justifiable to essentially enlist people's devices to police their owners, while using the electricity that you pay for, the internet service you pay for, and the device itself that you pay for to perform a function that is to absolutely no benefit to the user and in fact can only ever be harmful to them.

This is an obvious misrepresentation. An opt-in system to detect when adults are trying to groom kids by sending them porn seems like the opposite of harm. I imagine a lot of parents want that.

As for scanning what gets sent to iCloud. That’s also an opt-in service, and frankly it seems entirely reasonable for Apple not to want their servers to be used as a repository or hub for child porn.

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

#288

Post by tomjen3 »

dwaite wrote: post #88
734129837261 wrote: post #51

It'll start with protecting children. We all want to protect children, don't we? Why do you want children abused? Are you a child abuser, what do you have to hide? Next it's elderly people. We don't want our forgetful elders to get lost, do we? What if grandma wanders off but is in someone's picture, surely you want the police to know right that second where she is? Next up, terrorists! Four adult brown men in an unm…

> It'll start with protecting children. We all want to protect children, don't we? Why do you want children abused? Are you a child abuser, what do you have to hide? To be clear, this is continued enforcement for years-old regulation. The feature is only enabled in the US where it is required. The implementation is changing from cloud-based matching (which requires photos to be readable by their cloud infrastructure)…

>E2E encrypted w two additional key release mechanisms

Aka not E2E and therefore something that Cook should face a fraud charge for saying it is.

Apple needs to make it true e2e yesterday, and tell the FBI that they can either approve of it, or never use an iPhone again.

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

#289

Post by least »

zepto wrote: post #287
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.…

> Under no circumstances is it justifiable to essentially enlist people's devices to police their owners, while using the electricity that you pay for, the internet service you pay for, and the device itself that you pay for to perform a function that is to absolutely no benefit to the user and in fact can only ever be harmful to them. This is an obvious misrepresentation. An opt-in system to detect when adults are t…

It's not a misrepresentation whatsoever.

If Apple wishes to scan what's on their servers, that is their prerogative. They can use their compute resources and energy to do so. You needn't install spyware on a person's device that is of no benefit to the user. I'll reiterate, this can only ever be harmful to the user. Its utility right now is at its absolute best and most altruistic and it is still a violation of people's privacy and stealing computing resources from the device owner.

> That’s also an opt-in service, and frankly it seems entirely reasonable for Apple not to want their servers to be used as a repository or hub for child porn.

This will not stop their servers being used as a repository for illicit materials, if that is what you're suggesting.

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

#290

Post by DSingularity »

ctvo wrote: post #139
DSingularity wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think this?

I can't find a widely accepted statistic but these numbers should illustrate the point: - A 2016 study by the Center for Court Innovation found that between 8,900 and 10,500 children, ages 13 to 17, are commercially exploited each year in the United States. (Center for Court Innovation, 2016) https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/document... - The annual number of persons prosecuted for commercial sexua…

Here are other statistics that suggest this is anything but a “niche” crime.

https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...

Post reply on HN