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

Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

blog.ericgoldman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 597 posts

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#281

Post by tzs »

goolz wrote: post #86
amazingamazing wrote: post #4

It is crazy people think apple isnt on the side of privacy. Are they perfect? Not even close, but compared to the rest of big tech theyre simply on another level. Apple could easily not do this stuff and it may even be easier to not.

It is crazy that I do not trust a multi-trillion dollar company who has forced labor in their supply chain to have my best interests in mind? It is crazy to me you would think they do not understand the concept of lip service. These companies are liars. I do not trust liars. It has served me well.

You mean the company that does hundreds of assessments per year of companies all throughout the supply chain, including surprise spot checks, and forces those it catches violating labor standards to fix the problem and also provide remedies to the affected workers?

Quite a lot of the labor issues in Apple's supply chain we found out because Apple found them and included them in their annual report on these and other supply chain issues.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#282

Post by nativeit »

Hasz wrote: post #236
giantg2 wrote: post #198

Maybe my perception is off, but it seems like there's a huge push by the legislature and some people to do anything and everything to prevent CSAM, yet almost nothing seems to be done to prevent CSA. For CSAM, there's all sorts of monitoring, scanning, identify capturing, etc. But it's all after abuse has taken place, and it seems that many of the people actually arrested are arrested for CSAM and not CSA. This has e…

Because it isn't about CSAM, IMO. You see this with plenty of social issues, notably firearms ownership. The claim is we will restrict/license/outlaw xyz for the kids, but really, a data-drive approach would have focused on different things entirely (eg additional behavioral health services for kids, suicide prevention etc) The same technology/access used for CSAM identification can find copyrighted files, materials…

When did we aggressively legislate against, search for, monitor, investigate, and prosecute owning firearms?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#283

Post by dgellow »

RajT88 wrote: post #234
dgellow wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is pretty extreme, you have at the same time easy access to all the pornography you want (unless you’re in states that require age verification), and also a very prude culture. It’s not the only place with such contradictions though

Texas is particularly wild to me as a midwesterner. All the bibles and megachurches and all that and... They have strip clubs freaking everywhere! Really weird zoning laws as well - I recall seeing a strip club across the street from an Office Depot, next to a deli. The suburbs where I live, you have to go to a seedy part of town so you feel good and ashamed about it. lol Some TV shows rightfully take aim at this con…

That’s hilarious!

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#284

Post by throwaway2037 »

giantg2 wrote: post #198

Maybe my perception is off, but it seems like there's a huge push by the legislature and some people to do anything and everything to prevent CSAM, yet almost nothing seems to be done to prevent CSA. For CSAM, there's all sorts of monitoring, scanning, identify capturing, etc. But it's all after abuse has taken place, and it seems that many of the people actually arrested are arrested for CSAM and not CSA. This has e…

    > yet almost nothing seems to be done to prevent CSA

    > On the CSA side, ... [t]here doesn't seem to be any real push for educating and protecting kids before it happens.
This is a mighty wide brush you are painting with. When I was growing up, from very early (elementary school), we had "health class" where the teacher would teach you things about your body and health. This also included who is allowed to see you naked and/or touch your private parts. They also explained how to get help if someone what touching you inappropriately. That effort seems pretty active to me.

    > I personally know of 1 who took a leak across from a playground at 2am walking home from the bars and was put on the sex offender registry because it was within 500'.
Urinating in public late at night is an interesting category of inprobably CSA-labeled behaviour. It should be treated with kid gloves -- the context matters.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#285

Post by majorchord »

slashdave wrote: post #41
majorchord wrote: post #12

IMO "end-to-end encryption" simply isn't possible when the application is run by the same company as the servers the data sits on, is closed source, and can at any time, see the decrypted contents of data it downloads from their servers and do whatever they want with it. Same issue with Proton, MEGA, and any other e2ee app... it's only useful when the company decides not to mess with the data it could always decrypt…

Only if the company misleads and adds a backdoor to the front-end app (thus this entire discussion). If the company is misleading, any encryption technology is irrelevant anyway.

In the US at least, companies can and do receive secret demands from the government to add whatever kind of backdoor they want, and you're not allowed to disclose it in any way, they even order you to preserve any warrant canaries you have implemented.

This is for example why Lavabit chose to go out of business instead of giving up their keys.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#286

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #261
schrodinger wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you see apologies? I read it basically as “schools are even worse than churches and scouts yet are overlooked,” nothing apologizing for the churches.

HN is very anti-religion. It turns off their brain when they see it and leads to these kinds of responses.

Please tell me which part of your brain is engaged when you converse with your imaginary friend?

Is that really the best reply you could conjure? Maybe you can produce some evidence absolving the Catholic Church here? Or are you also an apologist for institutions that call themselves sacred engaging in systemic sex abuse?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#287

Post by ebbi »

aljgz wrote: post #118
mrkeen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the fun of it. Try to find out? Straight to prison.

Really sad. I read a lot of psychology. But I've never encountered psychology of child sexual abuse (I know there is if I look it up, but that's my point, it should be shared around, discussed, challenged). Why would some adults find kids sexually attractive? Is it abusive/aggressive behavior manifesting itself in sexuality? Or is it sexuality channeled in the wrong direction? If it's the second, is it out of despera…

I can't reply with stats, but I sometimes get in a bit of a loop watching the 'pred vs catcher' videos on social media.

After having watched what would probably be hundreds (across the US and UK), you start to see some patterns on offenders:

- The ones that are obviously mentally ill/brain development issues - they're adults but act and talk like a child. With some of the interactions with this cohort, some/many don't even realise what they're doing is wrong.

- The ones that seem ok from a developmental perspective, but are physically undesirable from societal norms and don't have a legal outlet - whether that's because of looks/weight/age/disabilities etc. This is where you see many old married men - probably not being fulfilled at home.

- The ones that have a fetish for a type and will go to any lengths after not being able to fulfil this legally (this is where, I think, immigrants over-index: they have a fetish for 'white' women, and can't fulfil their desires legally, so try with the most vulnerable)

- The ones that seem mentally and physically ok, but you can glean from their interactions that they are cold-blooded, ruthless, know what they're doing is wrong. These are the ones that take many calculated steps to cover their trails. When caught, they show barely any regret, and when they do, it's only regret because they were caught.

Then obviously I think there's a class of them that don't come up on these sites, but we can get a glimpse of it from the likes of the Epstein files. The rich. The famous. The ones that think they can do whatever they want. How pervasive this is in society is anyone's guess, but it seems like there is a dark underworld for this class. A Netflix documentary comes to mind about two boys who were trafficked by their parents to wealthy elites in the UK.

Obviously what differentiates all of these to people that may sit in one of those cohorts but don't resort to this despicable behavior is some underlying predisposition to predatory behavior.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#288

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

schrodinger wrote: post #249
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the school work to cover it up to the same extent? Are people across the school in on it? Are the rates of abuse higher on a per capita basis? Why are you making apologies for (Catholic) church sex abuse? Because you are a member and you took a training? Yikes.

Where did you see apologies? I read it basically as “schools are even worse than churches and scouts yet are overlooked,” nothing apologizing for the churches.

"demonization" of the church?

Ironic phrasing, given the Catholic Church wants authority to decide what is demonic while acting like demons. Why is the comment so plainly aggrieved? Is the Catholic Church a victim here?

Even as your sanitized claim, where is the evidence?

It doesn't exist.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#289

Post by majorchord »

scosman wrote: post #180
majorchord wrote: post #12

IMO "end-to-end encryption" simply isn't possible when the application is run by the same company as the servers the data sits on, is closed source, and can at any time, see the decrypted contents of data it downloads from their servers and do whatever they want with it. Same issue with Proton, MEGA, and any other e2ee app... it's only useful when the company decides not to mess with the data it could always decrypt…

> IMO "end-to-end encryption" simply isn't possible In a technical sense it's absolutely possible. Owning the servers != transferring keys to the servers. Most E2E apps run both client and servers, it's about if they ever had key access.

Right... it's one thing to for example, use a third-party MEGA client to upload files so that there's no chance of the company ever being able to see your key (unlike random javascript they might inject into the web version).

But when Apple etc. control both ends, their app could always see your data locally because it is the one that encrypts it to upload to the server in the first place. And these companies can receive secret orders from the US government to add backdoors into the local app and there's nothing you can do or say about it, except go out of business (like Lavabit).

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#290

Post by schrodinger »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #288
schrodinger wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you see apologies? I read it basically as “schools are even worse than churches and scouts yet are overlooked,” nothing apologizing for the churches.

"demonization" of the church? Ironic phrasing, given the Catholic Church wants authority to decide what is demonic while acting like demons. Why is the comment so plainly aggrieved? Is the Catholic Church a victim here? Even as your sanitized claim, where is the evidence? It doesn't exist.

I'm not a Catholic (nor religious at all), and do question whether schools truly are worse than churches in terms of how children are treated.

But that's not the point. You made up a quote I didn't say ("demonization"), and accused the former poster of doing something they weren't: defending the church.

Saying that schools are worse yet ignored is not defending the church. It may also be incorrect, but that's a separate assertion.

Post reply on HN