EFF Joins Global Coalition Asking Apple CEO Tim Cook to Stop Phone-Scanning

Post by slownews45 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

Post by zepto » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

slownews45 wrote: post #51

zepto wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but that is a feature of this particular problem. For example, I see a lot of people who are simply wrong about how the hash matching works. One way to be wrong is to think it’s a cryptographic hash. Another way to be wrong is to think it’s just a perceptual hash match. The problem is that these are both not crazy. The actual solution is far more complex and non-obvious than most people would suspect. I thin…

Apple have been pretty clear that a human will review things. That is (I hope) a feature of any system that leads to child porn charges. If not it should be - AI gets things wrong and can be tricked (as can humans but in different ways usually). But agreed, the technical bits may not be obvious (though apple released I thought a pretty darn complete paper on how it all works).

Post by anonuser123456 » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

carlosdp wrote: post #14

azinman2 wrote: post #11

> As we’ve explained in Deeplinks blog posts, Apple’s planned phone-scanning system opens the door to broader abuses. It decreases privacy for all iCloud photo users, and the parental notification system is a shift away from strong end-to-end encryption. It will tempt liberal democratic regimes to increase surveillance, and likely bring even great pressures from regimes that already have online censorship ensconced i…

> (though that could easily be the same even without all these CSAM measures.. not a new threat) Apple has historically avoided being pressured by governments to allow this kind of surveillance by arguing they can't be forced to create functionality that doesn't exist, or hand over information they don't have. It's the argument they made in the San Bernadino case. If they release this, it'll be much harder to avoid g…

Post by tpush » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #48

tpush wrote: post #18

> [...] and the parental notification system is a shift away from strong end-to-end encryption. That particular statement doesn't make much sense to me. The parental notification system is just a frontend action (one of many, like link previews and such). What does that have to do with iMessage's encryption? I can see an argument about a shift away from privacy (though it only pertains to minors under 13 receiving se…

It is not about the encryption, it is about what an "end" is. Generally, we consider the "end" to be the end user. If someone else can see the message along the way, it is not end to end anymore from a user perspective, even if it is from a network perspective. And Apple has complete control over your device through software updates. So that the leak is from your device or from the network is a mostly meaningless tec…

Post by shuckles » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

slownews45 wrote: post #91

here is a quote from EFF complaint about Apple alerting parents to kids under 13 being sent porn: "The recipient’s parents will be informed of the content without the sender consenting to their involvement." Are parents really outraged by this? Are people sending porn upset about this? My own view is as a parent if you send porn to my kids, I shouldn't NEED your consent to be alerted to this. I paid for the device, s…