Apple clarifies why it abandoned plan to detect CSAM in iCloud photos

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 1:37 PM UTC

gnfargbl wrote: post #97

bigDinosaur wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extreme hysteria created by anything related to children often seems to be carte blanche to destroy privacy and implement backdoors in applications. Most child abuse comes from family members (which must be solved at the source), and the ultra extreme cases simply make awful law (doing away with E2EE or instituting mass surveillance to catch an incredibly small minority is absurd). Much like other 'tough on crime…

> Most child abuse comes from family members (which must be solved at the source) Yes. Since becoming an abuser is a process and not a moment, part of the solution must be making access to CSAM much harder. > And no, we are not 'condoning' it when we declare E2EE an overall good thing. Agreed. I'm sorry if I worded things in a way that caused you to see an implication which was not intended. To be clear: E2EE is a go…

Post by danbruc » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #110

danbruc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have reasonable evidence, wiretapping a suspect to gain more evidence is fine. On the other hand wiretapping everyone in hope of finding some initial evidence, that is not okay at all.

But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.

Post by jtbayly » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 1:52 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #110

danbruc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have reasonable evidence, wiretapping a suspect to gain more evidence is fine. On the other hand wiretapping everyone in hope of finding some initial evidence, that is not okay at all.

But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.

Post by jtbayly » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 1:57 PM UTC

figlett wrote: post #84

danpalmer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass surveillance is bad, but I think there are versions of it that are far less bad than others. Apple's proposed solution would have theoretically only reported cases that were much more than likely to be already known instances of CSAM (i.e. not pictures of your kids), and if nothing else is reported, can we say that they were really surveilled? In some very strict sense, yes, but in terms of outcomes, no.

Mass surveillance isn't necessarily bad. It depends how it's implemented. The solution you describe is basically how it works with the intelligence agencies, in that only a miniscule fraction of the data collected in bulk ever reaches human eyes. The rest ends up being discarded after the retention period. In terms of outcomes, almost nobody is actually surveilled, as the overall effect is the same as no data having…

Post by flir » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #115

flir wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.

It’s guaranteed by our constitution, among other reasons. Search of my communications for no reason is, by definition “unreasonable search.”