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

41–50 of 83 posts

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

#41

Post by oceanghost »

api wrote: post #26
aNoob7000 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to add that they are scanning your property without your permission. The crazy part is that the government can't do this with a warrant or probable cause, but Apple decided that it can and will. Amazing that Apple destroyed their image about "Privacy" in minutes.

I really wonder about their motives for this. It really has destroyed their image to the point that I'm thinking about abandoning the platform if nothing changes. This will not just be about CP. In many countries this will instantly be used to detect any kind of dissent. In the US it will take longer, but eventually I can imagine "misinformation" as determined by some stupid algorithm flagging you for quiet social cr…

What I wonder is-- are child pornographers really by and large storing these materials on iCloud or on their phones at all?

I think you're correct, this is the thin end of the wedge for something else entirely.

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

#42

Post by bogwog »

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.

This could actually have some very serious consequences. Quote from the apple announcement:

> Apple then manually reviews each report to confirm there is a match, disables the user’s account, and sends a report to NCMEC.

So a match doesn't just get you reported to the authorities, it disables your account. Even if the feds do investigate you and find you innocent due to being swatted or whatever, you still need to file an appeal with Apple and hope they give you back your digital life.

This could also lead to large spam campaigns of CP being sent to random people, either to just fuck with them, or to undermine the system/overwhelm investigators with a bunch of false positives.

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

#43

Post by bogwog »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #31
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.

Oh right, so if I stop using the thing I paid for, I can avoid giving my consent. I could also just not buy an iPhone for the same effect. (at least until Google gets around to copying Apple)

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

#44

Post by zepto »

foxyv wrote: post #2

The thing that scares me isn't so much the violation of privacy. It's the idea that some computer algorithm can accuse me of a crime automatically with no evidence and generate an investigation. Judging by how police respond to these leads, you can end up in jail based on this "Evidence." While you wait for a 6 month investigation to be completed you lose your job and get an arrest record. Even if your photo is just…

> The thing that scares me isn't so much the violation of privacy. It's the idea that some computer algorithm can accuse me of a crime automatically with no evidence and generate an investigation.

Nothing about apple’s proposal involves algorithms accusing people with a crime without evidence.

All actual alerts are done by humans checking the photos.

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

#45

Post by zepto »

aNoob7000 wrote: post #9
foxyv wrote: post #2

The thing that scares me isn't so much the violation of privacy. It's the idea that some computer algorithm can accuse me of a crime automatically with no evidence and generate an investigation. Judging by how police respond to these leads, you can end up in jail based on this "Evidence." While you wait for a 6 month investigation to be completed you lose your job and get an arrest record. Even if your photo is just…

I want to add that they are scanning your property without your permission. The crazy part is that the government can't do this with a warrant or probable cause, but Apple decided that it can and will. Amazing that Apple destroyed their image about "Privacy" in minutes.

> I want to add that they are scanning your property without your permission.

This is a false statement. Scanning is opt-in.

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

#46

Post by zepto »

jrm4 wrote: post #19
foxyv wrote: post #2

The thing that scares me isn't so much the violation of privacy. It's the idea that some computer algorithm can accuse me of a crime automatically with no evidence and generate an investigation. Judging by how police respond to these leads, you can end up in jail based on this "Evidence." While you wait for a 6 month investigation to be completed you lose your job and get an arrest record. Even if your photo is just…

Say it louder. Recently I opposed this and was met with "I bet you don't have children." I do, and I am black and so are they, and I'm quite familiar of the present state of facial recognition tech (and, of course, the justice system generally) when it comes to people who look like us. This is all unacceptable, and the fact that some of it has already come to pass is no reason to not fix it.

What does any of this have to do with facial recognition tech or race?

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

#47

Post by zepto »

bogwog wrote: post #43
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh right, so if I stop using the thing I paid for, I can avoid giving my consent. I could also just not buy an iPhone for the same effect. (at least until Google gets around to copying Apple)

This isn’t true unless you paid for additional storage in iCloud photos which you are under no obligation to do.

There are numerous competing storage photo storage services with both free and paid tiers.

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

#48

Post by api »

oceanghost wrote: post #41
api wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wonder about their motives for this. It really has destroyed their image to the point that I'm thinking about abandoning the platform if nothing changes. This will not just be about CP. In many countries this will instantly be used to detect any kind of dissent. In the US it will take longer, but eventually I can imagine "misinformation" as determined by some stupid algorithm flagging you for quiet social cr…

What I wonder is-- are child pornographers really by and large storing these materials on iCloud or on their phones at all? I think you're correct, this is the thin end of the wedge for something else entirely.

This is the thin end of a wedge even if it isn't intended to be. Rights need to be strictly defined for a reason.

I personally believe that we had an attempted fascist coup in the USA in January of this year. I know a lot of people disagree. If you disagree imagine that the defeated POTUS had been someone to the left of Bernie Sanders and a bunch of militia members wearing "Lenin was Right" shirts and carrying nooses and zip ties had stormed the capitol to stop the vote from being counted. What would you call that? (I'd call it the same thing.)

The next attempted coup will not be so incompetent. That totalitarian regime will inherit everything we are building today.

If you're on the other side of the aisle, imagine that the next attempted coup is indeed a radical leftist. That's by no means impossible. If the economic divide continues to worsen in this country it may not matter if they are "right" or "left" as long as they are passing out torches and pitchforks. I could see a large fraction of the MAGA crowd turning red in the more classic commie sense if they were promised jobs, affordable housing, and... well... someone to make America great again.

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

#49

Post by rasz »

SavageBeast wrote: post #10

Apple apparently has the ability to look at pix stored in iCloud. I wonder who's pix they will start looking at first? The Fappening Part II By Apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot... That which CAN happen WILL happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/09/apple-r...

https://metro.co.uk/2016/10/13/apple-geniuses-caught-stealin... https://www.sbs.com.au/news/apple-staff-fired-after-allegedl...

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

#50

Post by jrm4 »

zepto wrote: post #46
jrm4 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say it louder. Recently I opposed this and was met with "I bet you don't have children." I do, and I am black and so are they, and I'm quite familiar of the present state of facial recognition tech (and, of course, the justice system generally) when it comes to people who look like us. This is all unacceptable, and the fact that some of it has already come to pass is no reason to not fix it.

What does any of this have to do with facial recognition tech or race?

I get that questions like these are perhaps meant to be "more precise" about the specific tech in question, but honestly, they do more to display the naivete of the questioner in terms of understanding how this sort of thing plays out in real life, when it's not just tech folks, but other policymakers and stakeholders are involved and have the power to make decisions.

Even if the thing Apple is talking about right now can be distinguished from "facial recognition" on a technical level, it would be much MORE of a mistake to NOT lump them in together if we're trying to bring this debate to the general public, which we, of course, we should.

(don't get me started on race..)

Post reply on HN