Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

ar.al

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#31

Post by gjsman-1000 »

system16 wrote: post #22

I can't understand how anyone - even Apple's usual cheerleaders like Gruber - can justify defending this with a straight face. It's scanning your content on your device, without your consent. Full stop. Apple's FAQ to try and quell some of the backlash for this just makes it sound even worse in my opinion with gems like this: _Could governments force Apple to add non-CSAM images to the hash list?_ _Apple will refuse…

It is with your consent. If you don't use iCloud Photos, your files don't get scanned.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#32

Post by throw03172019 »

foxyv wrote: post #23
throw03172019 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a human review (ugh.) as well. But still, your example is very concerning.

They say there is a human review, but fail to explain the parameters of the review. How many photos is a reviewer expected to review in an hour? What are their incentives and performance metrics? Do they have a 3 party voting system to confirm? For positive human review is there additional scrutiny? Is data anonymized properly? Does law enforcement receive a copy? Is this going to be limited to child exploitation? Wi…

I would hope they aren’t incentivized to incriminate innocent people.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#33

Post by gjsman-1000 »

josh_today wrote: post #20

What Apple is doing is the equivalent of the police one day deciding to search everyone’s physical home photo albums just in case there’s a picture of an illegal activity.

Not really, actually.

They only do the scanning if you use iCloud Photos backup. If you use, say, local storage instead of iCloud, you don't get scanned (which would be a more apt comparison to a physical photo book). Also, they aren't scanning for new illegal activity, but images that you somehow obtained of past illegal activity that the government already knows about.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#34

Post by mypastself »

ohdannyboy wrote: post #14
mypastself wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are numerous valuable child protection laws and services against which your knee-jerk would be unwarranted. It just happens to be warranted this time around.

He didn't say that all measures to protect children should be rejected out of hand. He is just saying that if someones argument starts and ends with fear baiting around children then they probably have ulterior motives.

They professed unfamiliarity with the details of the situation, so they could not have known that the emotional appeal was the full extent of the argument.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#35

Post by gjsman-1000 »

foxyv wrote: post #23
throw03172019 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a human review (ugh.) as well. But still, your example is very concerning.

They say there is a human review, but fail to explain the parameters of the review. How many photos is a reviewer expected to review in an hour? What are their incentives and performance metrics? Do they have a 3 party voting system to confirm? For positive human review is there additional scrutiny? Is data anonymized properly? Does law enforcement receive a copy? Is this going to be limited to child exploitation? Wi…

Remember they said the odds of an account being falsely reported were "1 in a trillion."

We have no math to back that, some have called it BS. However... that would mean that one person could easily review only a few photos a week even if it was way off.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#37

Post by gjsman-1000 »

vxNsr wrote: post #5

If you wanna screw someone over and you know they have an iPhone with icloud backup set up, you can whatsapp them a pic that matches CP signature.

You need to meet the threshold, and they must add those photos to their iCloud Photos library. Remember iCloud Backups are E2E encrypted, iCloud Photo Library is not E2E.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#38

Post by mypastself »

onepunchedman wrote: post #16
mypastself wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are numerous valuable child protection laws and services against which your knee-jerk would be unwarranted. It just happens to be warranted this time around.

It's the same excuse the EU are currently using to infringe upon its citizens' privacy and require messaging application providers to install backdoors. It's an appeal to emotion, and since we have to assume that these legislators are intelligent, it's a disgusting overreach.

They are indeed overreaches, but even a valuable child protection law or service might presumably be pushed with an appeal to emotion. It’s better to familiarize yourself with the situation before dismissing it out of hand. While preserving a healthy dose of skepticism, of course.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#39

Post by bogwog »

Serious question: why did Apple bother making that announcement at all? I can't imagine they're naive enough to think it would be good press for them?

They could have done this quietly without telling anyone, maybe with a vaguely-worded update to the terms of service for the next mandatory iOS update that nobody reads anyways.

Re: Apple wants to redefine what it means to violate your privacy. We mustn’t let it

#40

Post by Zealotux »

bogwog wrote: post #39

Serious question: why did Apple bother making that announcement at all? I can't imagine they're naive enough to think it would be good press for them? They could have done this quietly without telling anyone, maybe with a vaguely-worded update to the terms of service for the next mandatory iOS update that nobody reads anyways.

Hiding such a massive thing in a quiet update would have generated a much larger shitstorm, I don't know if the internal memo I've read is legit but by the look of it: Apple made its calculations and decided it was more interesting to release it this way.
Post reply on HN