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

311–318 of 318 posts

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

#311

Post by hakfoo »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #189
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~~ a murder video is not considered a murderer. That is because the consumption of child porn induces people to create it. The consumption of action movies does not induce people to murder anyone.

I'm curious to what extent the demand for new child porn content is directly driven by its illegal nature.

Some proportion of existing content has been discovered, tagged, and hashed. The legally and technically savvy members of the audience would likely know this. In such an environment, "old standard" content would be seen as riskier to hold or exchange. A completely fresh, new abuse image is the least likely to trip any automated monitoring system.

I could also easily see warez-ratio style "you've got to share something new to get access to our content" patterns, to try to discourage law-enforcement infiltration of their groups and to ensure "if I go down, I take you with me" legal leverage.

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

#312

Post by skinkestek »

nomel wrote: post #300
skinkestek wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that's why they have some threshold that moves the false positive rate to one in one trillion. So now instead of sending just one nice innocent very high resolution images of "Tokyo City" or something with something horrific hidden somewhere you have to send a few such images. That is reassuring. I can never believe anyone except me will think about that. (If the system is too dumb to detect this it is wo…

This would require multiple hash collisions.

No need for hash collisions, that's what makes it so bad: just edit multiple known verybad images in multiple nice high res photos like I tried to explain above.

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

#313

Post by mirashii »

pas wrote: post #306
rahkiin wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they want to turn iCloud fully e2e, so cannot actually scan anymore on their servers. They have to scan for CSAM by US law.

Could someone point to the relevant statute/regulation?

As far as I'm aware, there is none, though the EARN IT act that passed the Senate last year would have brought us closer by opening a company to liability if they provide E2E encryption without a mechanism for CSAM detection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EARN_IT_Act_of_2020

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

#314

Post by mulmen »

cblconfederate wrote: post #301
mulmen wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and as much as I'd like to see at least that amount of "watering the liberty tree" directed at Big Tech […] I’m having a hard time finding a reading of this that isn’t advocating violence against tech workers. Is that what you intended?

tech workers are replaceable. even if we assume violence was implied, it s better directed at their datacenters. I did not find it very hard to assume a not-the-worst-possible reading of the comment. What's with the comment police here lately that's labeling various comments? I hope this ain't becoming the new twitter

Are you aware of what “water the tree of liberty” references?

It is a Thomas Jefferson quote:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

In the context of January 6th it’s hard to make a leap to metaphorical server blood. Datacenters still have people inside them, no mention of servers was made. Only a quote from a man who waged a real war.

> tech workers are replaceable.

Speaking as a tech worker, no, my life is not replaceable.

> I did not find it very hard to assume a not-the-worst-possible reading of the comment.

The not-the-worst-possible reading being what? Mobs attacking data centers?

> What's with the comment police here lately that's labeling various comments? I hope this ain't becoming the new twitter

I feel the same way. So let's tone down the rhetoric. If this post was metaphorical hyperbole it is the kind that got a president impeached.

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

#315

Post by nomel »

skinkestek wrote: post #312
nomel wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would require multiple hash collisions.

No need for hash collisions, that's what makes it so bad: just edit multiple known verybad images in multiple nice high res photos like I tried to explain above.

It’s a visual hash, not something like an md5. And now you’re talking of a directed attack to intentionally make hash collisions?

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

#316

Post by zepto »

pas wrote: post #306
rahkiin wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they want to turn iCloud fully e2e, so cannot actually scan anymore on their servers. They have to scan for CSAM by US law.

Could someone point to the relevant statute/regulation?

They don’t have to scan by US law. They only have to report detections, so if you have a content moderation team, they must report.

The EU and UK are in the process of passing laws requiring scanning.

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

#317

Post by mshroyer »

jjcon wrote: post #245
mshroyer wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The other thing that pushed me towards Framework was the trivially user-replaceable parts, including the battery.

My MBP's battery failed (swelled up) twice while under warranty, but it was a pain to deal with each time: wipe the SSD (because it's soldered on), hand it over to Apple, wait several days for repair, and then restore from backup. And now it's no longer under AppleCare coverage anyway.

In contrast, Framework designed their motherboard so we can even use it as a standalone PC once we're done using it as part of a laptop. That's such a difference in terms of user reparability.

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

#318

Post by mshroyer »

intricatedetail wrote: post #258
mshroyer wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am looking at Framework, but it still feels like a legacy tech. I have XPS 15 from 2019 and it feels slow and fans drive me crazy. I don't think Framework will be much different. I was looking at M1 for fanless experience and performance. I wish they at least considered ditching Intel and adding a good AMD option - then I will buy it.

You're not wrong, in the sense that an M1 Mac would have better performance and battery life than the laptop I have on order. But to me, the tradeoffs (not only in terms of privacy, but also user-repairability) are worth it. (And my new Intel-based Framework laptop will still be much faster than the laptop I've been using for the last several years.)
Post reply on HN