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

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

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 215 posts

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

#201

Post by simondotau »

LocalH wrote: post #170
simondotau wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent, I consider myself the "end user" of my child's device, not my child. That I might be looped in on any messages sent or received by this device is not at all a leak, it's a convenience—much like how I can receive messages sent to me on my phone and my laptop.

It's very creepy that you want to eavesdrop on your child in that way, in my opinion. This is the micro version of governments wanting ubiquitous surveillance.

Do I want to eavesdrop on my pre-teen child? Hell no.

Am I entitled to know when my pre-teen child has received a message that contains a potentially explicit attachment, or text which matches the traits of child grooming? Hell yes.

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

#202

Post by simondotau »

slownews45 wrote: post #153
GuB-42 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one who pays doesn't matter. Unchecked and applied to adults that line of thinking gives right to terrible things, including slavery. Children are a different story, they are not free, they are under the control and responsibility of their legal guardians. In fact, the status of a child and the status of a slave are not so different, that's why there are very strict laws regarding child labor, because otherwise i…

This is just such a crazy position. If I buy a car it doesn't matter that I own it? If I rent it to you I can't set the terms of that rental? This is just nuts from the EFF.

There is an enormous difference between a situation where both parties are independent adults, and where the parties are a parent/guardian and their pre-teen child. Trying to make analogies between these is fraught with error.

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

#203

Post by simondotau »

HWR_14 wrote: post #148
shuckles wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were never in a world where Apple was unable to do what the government was asking. Nothing impossible has been made possible, and Apple has made a stand against small changes - like changing constants - before.

It's not "impossibility". It's cost. The FBI cannot force Apple to do free work to circumvent security. Can they force them to add one more hash? Is that work?

> Can [the FBI] force them to add one more hash?

No. Because the hash causes searches to be performed on citizens' private property, this would be an unambiguous, indisputable, clear-cut violation of the 4th Amendment.

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

#204

Post by lenkite »

odessacubbage wrote: post #160
simondotau wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as acceptable as it is, you are still a spy and the app is spyware. I vehemently disagree that a feature could be classed as spyware if it clearly and unambiguously declares exactly what it's going to do prior offering a choice whether or not to do it. By that logic, the mere presence of a "report phishing" button in any cloud email service would be sufficient to declare it as spyware. But fine, whatever. You'r…

once given a device, a child's technical literacy will quickly surpass that of their guardian and as such, any form of 'protection' will be just as quickly circumvented. there is no technological panacea that will keep your child safe because that is not how predation happens in the real world.

Not true today. Thanks to locked-down and dumbed-down smartphones, Many parents of the PC-era are actually more tech-inclined than their children

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

#205

Post by unityByFreedom »

tekknik wrote: post #179
unityByFreedom wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im a parent of young ones and I wouldn't want control of my kids' devices or messages. Good parenting is about preparing your kid for the world, not jumping in whenever there is a fire. Frankly I find this attitude very creepy. At what age do you "turn off" access? If you can't handle your kid being online then don't pay for their device or phone plan.

It’s also about building trust and a relationship with your child. I also think this behavior is creepy and would do it myself. But interestingly it is preparing them for a world in which there really are no secrets anymore.

If the world is full of goblins and demons you don't become a demon to "prepare them". You are their rock for as long as you're around, and when you're gone they'll be the rock for their children or other friends and family.

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

#206

Post by radlad »

simondotau wrote: post #197
LocalH wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minors deserve no privacy? Is that what you're saying?

If you're talking about teenagers, I would say there's valid debate to be had. Minors, hell no. There's no debate. Parents are entitled to know—I'd personally go further and say a responsibility to know—what's going on in their life.

Teenagers are minors. Doesn't sound like a very trusting environment.

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

#207

Post by simondotau »

radlad wrote: post #206
simondotau wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about teenagers, I would say there's valid debate to be had. Minors, hell no. There's no debate. Parents are entitled to know—I'd personally go further and say a responsibility to know—what's going on in their life.

Teenagers are minors. Doesn't sound like a very trusting environment.

I guess there's a language difference. I'm Australian.

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

#208

Post by tekknik »

simondotau wrote: post #200
tekknik wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this work if you buy your spouse/SO a device? Or a parent/grandparent? Even a gift for a friend?

You are making this out to be more complicated than it is. A gift is a gift. A device "assigned" to someone by an administrator (e.g. a work laptop) isn't a gift. The gift of a device with administrative strings attached is just that. Furthermore, by law the parent still effectively owns anything "given" to a pre-teen child. If the parent wants to take the device away from them and sell it, they're well within their…

So now you’re the IT administrator of your family and you’re assigning devices to your employees? It’s a gift when it’s your spouse but not when it’s your child?

> Furthermore, by law the parent still effectively owns anything "given" to a pre-teen child.

Now that’s very broad. Which country/state/etc? I think if you actually looked instead of assuming, you’ll find that people under 18 can definitely own things.

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

#209

Post by radlad »

simondotau wrote: post #207
radlad wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teenagers are minors. Doesn't sound like a very trusting environment.

I guess there's a language difference. I'm Australian.

The dictionary defines a minor as "a person under the age of full legal responsibility" which I think teenagers would still fall under, even in Australia?

Understandably the term might be used differently or more loosely elsewhere.

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

#210

Post by anonuser123456 »

istingray wrote: post #175
anonuser123456 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Apple simply tells the DOJ if any non-CSAM content is added surreptitiously to the DB, Apple will drop CSAM scanning. Also, if DOJ makes any request to scan for non CSAM by court order or warrant, Apple will in kind drop support for the technology. Apple is making the good faith effort here. If DOJ makes a bad faith effort, Apple is in now way required to continue to participate.

In this scenario, how would the first criteria be met? "Content is added surreptitiously to the DB"? From my understanding Apple blindly accepts the list of hashes from their trusted soueces.

Apple will see the results of the matched images however. Given that Apple believes their algorithm will generate an impossibly small quantity of false positives, if they start to see political images, sensitive documents etc. show up, that tips them off the DB is corrupt.

All of these processes will be subject to discovery in the very first trial generated by this technology. If there is evidence that governments are polluting the DB with non-CSAM content, then warrants issued on evidence from the DB can be overturned. Prosecutors in DOJ and FBI etc. have a strong incentive to ensure that DB doesn't turn into a free-for-all dragnet because it could work to invalidate their ability to use evidence from legitimate CSAM cases.

Post reply on HN