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

Apple defends anti-child abuse imagery tech after claims of ‘hash collisions’

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–465 of 465 posts

Re: Apple defends anti-child abuse imagery tech after claims of ‘hash collisions’

#461

Post by zepto »

int_19h wrote: post #413
zepto wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iCloud backups are not scanned. Also, what apps are you talking about?

Photos that are automatically uploaded to iCloud are not scanned? As for apps - WhatsApp, for example, saves everything to Camera Roll by default. Which then gets auto-uploaded to iCloud.

> Photos that are automatically uploaded to iCloud are not scanned?

iCloud backups are not scanned. Only photos uploaded to iCloud Photo Library.

> As for apps - WhatsApp, for example, saves everything to Camera Roll by default. Which then gets auto-uploaded to iCloud.

This is not true at all. The user is asked for explicit permission before apps can save photos to the camera roll, and the user must choose to use iCloud Photo Library.

Re: Apple defends anti-child abuse imagery tech after claims of ‘hash collisions’

#462

Post by jgreen401 »

Zak wrote: post #435
onethought wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the double speak? It’s quite clear they are trying to maintain e2e encryption while also achieving CSAM scanning. Google/Facebook/Microsoft do this by scanning everything unencrypted. Apple do it while maintaining encryption and are being punished for it. It’s insane.

iCloud is not end-to-end encrypted, and Apple has not announced plans to add that option. Apple has the technical ability to scan images on the server.

iCloud (at least for photos) is (effectively) "end to end encrypted". All photos are encrypted or decrypted only on the device (or after being downloaded to a browser), they never exist as human viewable files on iCloud. No one, except the owner of the account, can decrypt the file. This is why the checking for illegal file has to happen before they are upload. It cannot be done on the server, the encrypted file can never match the hash. What Apple has done that is real genius is that for each image identified as illegal, a part of the key is encrypted and sent with the file to Apple. After a threshold is met, the account is locked, the user notified of the appeals process, and Apple can decrypt and have the files verified. 1 or 2 false positives changes nothing.

Re: Apple defends anti-child abuse imagery tech after claims of ‘hash collisions’

#463

Post by alerighi »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #10
alerighi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't ban encryption, it's practically impossible, it's like banning math.

If you can get jailed for speech, you can get jailed for encryption.

> If you can get jailed for speech, you can get jailed for encryption.

Not in any democratic country.

How can you prove that I'm using encryption? How you even define what encryption is to make it possible to have a law that bans it? If me and you we put down a code to communicate, is that encryption and thus banned?

Also you wouldn't need to ban encryption completely. There are cases where encryption is required by law (e.g. digital signature on documents) and others where the encryption is required for things to work (e.g. credit cards, mobile phones, etc).

You have to put down a list of cases where you can use encryption and others where you can't. That is nearly impossible.

Re: Apple defends anti-child abuse imagery tech after claims of ‘hash collisions’

#465

Post by mono-bob »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #103
istingray wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds like a future NFT market

Sounds like hipster T-shirts with hash collision images.

I can confirm it was a fun weekend project and https://thishashcollisionisnotporn.com/ has now become reality! I included a button to buy a hipster T-shirt ;)
Post reply on HN