181–190 of 336 posts
> “Scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud data would create new threat vectors for data thieves to find and exploit," Neuenschwander wrote. "It would also inject the potential for a slippery slope of unintended consequences. Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types.” Both of th…
> “Scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud data would create new threat vectors for data thieves to find and exploit," Neuenschwander wrote. "It would also inject the potential for a slippery slope of unintended consequences. Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types.” Both of th…
We were not even at a point where that question needs to be asked. Federal and state police, some of the best funded, equipped and trained police in the world are so inundated with cases that they are forced to limit their investigations to just toddlers and babies. What use is it to add more and more cases to a mountain of uninvestigated crimes? Whats needed is more police clearing the existing caseload.
That's an unbelievably depressingly low bar for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you get this number?
e2ee for iCloud is currently opt-in, without prompts/nudging. Most power users don't even have it turned on or are aware of its existence. The setting is buried/hidden in submenus. Approximately no one uses it. Hopefully Apple will begin promoting users to migrate in future updates.
Anyone who doesn't know about this feature is not a power user in my book.
ETA: looks like they directly provide documents from Apple at the bottom of the article
> “Scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud data would create new threat vectors for data thieves to find and exploit," Neuenschwander wrote. "It would also inject the potential for a slippery slope of unintended consequences. Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types.” Both of th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, no, no. There is no parallel to be drawn between better encryption and worse outcomes for kids. Should we also outlaw high-performance cars because these sometimes serve as effective getaway vehicles for criminals? CSAM producers and consumers should be found and punished via old-fashioned methods. How was this done in the past? Did we just never catch any human traffickers / rapists? No, we had detectives who we…
> Should we also outlaw high-performance cars because these sometimes serve as effective getaway vehicles for criminals? What if we change the last bit after the "because" to "these sometimes are used at unsafe speeds and, intentionally or not, kill people who are not in cars?" Because, at least for me, the answer is an unambiguous yes. I agree that privacy and security should be available to everyone. But we also sh…
> “Scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud data would create new threat vectors for data thieves to find and exploit," Neuenschwander wrote. "It would also inject the potential for a slippery slope of unintended consequences. Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types.” Both of th…
No, no, no. There is no parallel to be drawn between better encryption and worse outcomes for kids. Should we also outlaw high-performance cars because these sometimes serve as effective getaway vehicles for criminals? CSAM producers and consumers should be found and punished via old-fashioned methods. How was this done in the past? Did we just never catch any human traffickers / rapists? No, we had detectives who we…
> “Scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud data would create new threat vectors for data thieves to find and exploit," Neuenschwander wrote. "It would also inject the potential for a slippery slope of unintended consequences. Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types.” Both of th…
No, no, no. There is no parallel to be drawn between better encryption and worse outcomes for kids. Should we also outlaw high-performance cars because these sometimes serve as effective getaway vehicles for criminals? CSAM producers and consumers should be found and punished via old-fashioned methods. How was this done in the past? Did we just never catch any human traffickers / rapists? No, we had detectives who we…
The "old-fashioned methods" that they used in the past included intercepting communications of people that were suspected of crimes, such as by getting a warrant allowing them to force the person's phone company to record and turn over the person's calls, or by getting a warrant to intercept and inspect the contents of the person's mail at the post office.
> To outlaw large sections of mathematics because of this is absurd
No one has or is proposing outlawing large sections of mathematics, or even small sections of mathematics. The laws are outlawing some applications that make use of mathematics.
Calling that outlawing mathematics is as absurd as saying that building codes that won't let me use asbestos insulation in new construction are banning sections of thermodynamics. Or saying that laws that restrict how high I can fly a drone are banning large sections of aerodynamics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How was this done in the past? Did we just never catch any human traffickers / rapists? Recently invented encrypted chat rooms allow people to coordinate and transfer CSAM without any government official being able to infiltrate it. And just being able to freely discuss has been shown to make the problem worse as it facilitates knowledge transfer. This is all completely different to in the past where this would hav…
Absolutely true. If there are new ways to commit crimes, there must be new ways to fight crimes. Child abuse has been accelerated greatly by technology and we are fighting it with sticks and stones because we don't want to accept that the terribleness of these crimes is worth giving up some of our privacy to stop.
Any source for that statement ? My understanding is that child abuse - while still existing - is at an all time low in modern western societies. Children working in brothel used to be common, children getting abused by the church used to be a well know fact etc.
Overall a using children is harder than ever even if it has not completely disappeared.
Technology - which allows efficient transfer of information, testimonies etc - is instrumental to that evolution.
I think they likely also considered the lawsuit exposure. If just 0.0001% of users sued over false positives, Apple would be in serious trouble. And there's another dynamic where telling your customers you're going to scan their content for child porn is the same as saying you suspect your customers of having child porn. And your average non-criminal customer's reaction to that is not positive for multiple reasons.
> (2) Civil liability
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected