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

291–300 of 597 posts

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#291

Post by ryandrake »

kryogen1c wrote: post #280
Hasz wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

epsteins case tells you how much the US political class cares about SA and CSA happening in the US.

Yea, until at least one non-ringleader Epstein party participant goes to jail, I'm not going to believe the US actually gives a shit about protecting children.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#292

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

schrodinger wrote: post #290
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 separ…

That was in the comment that started this chain. Are you using an alt? I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow. If I were you I would take a breath and read the chain again.

Here I'll help you:

> Just about every kid goes to school though, so people just prefer to sweep that under the rug and focus on targeting organizations they are not a part of or disagree with because they're easier to demonize and make fun of.

In what world is that useful to your sanitized claim? Is it not an obviously underhanded apology for the conduct of the church? Is the aggrieved nature of this really lost on you?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#293

Post by Zak »

tzs wrote: post #271
Zak wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were two different technologies. One was client-side scanning for known CSAM, which created a huge backlash and is described here: https://educatedguesswork.org/posts/apple-csam-intro/ The other is detection of images that may contain nudity, whether sent or received, when the owner/admin/parent enables the feature. It is relatively uncontroversial and is described here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/105069

> The other is detection of images that may contain nudity, whether sent or received, when the owner/admin/parent enables the feature. It is relatively uncontroversial [...] That's a new version. The one that as announced the same time as client side scanning to block uploading CSAM to iCloud worked like this. 1. It could be enabled on a child's device by the parents. It was not on be default. 2. If the child receive…

I have a hard time imagining any significant number of people objecting based on the sender's privacy. An adult sending explicit images to a child is a crime in most jurisdictions. A child doing it with a recipient under 13 is a concerning behavior the parents need to address.

Notifying the parents even requires that the child acknowledge that's what's going to happen.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#294

Post by basilikum »

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…

To play devil's advocate: child abuse is usually a crime without direct evidence. CSAM is child abuse but the perpetrator films their crime as evidence. Everyone else who obtains and keeps this material also holds evidence against themselves as the possession of it is the crime.

Now for real: People often do not care a lot about child abuse. It does not affect them as it happens in private where they do not see it. CSAM however does affect them as it makes the abuse visible and shows something deemed reprehensible. In a lot of ways people see themselves being witness (even indirect by purely hearing about it) to CSAM as the victim rather than the children who are harmed in the making and by redistribution.

My cynical opinion is that it is a lot more about social norms and feelings arising from the violation of these norms rather than the harm done through the violation of children.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#295

Post by basilikum »

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…

> 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'.

You might want to look up if that's actually true. It might be. It might also be a lie to hide the real reason why they are registered.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#296

Post by dijit »

basilikum wrote: post #295
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…

> 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'. You might want to look up if that's actually true. It might be. It might also be a lie to hide the real reason why they are registered.

on the flip side, imagine if it's true and everyone immediately suspects that you're a pedophile trying to appear innocent.

Talk about tainted for life.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#297

Post by rootusrootus »

RIMR wrote: post #273
Manuel_D wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. There can be more restrictions on the distribution or promotion of obscene material, but mere possession of obscene material is protected by the first Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia The reason why the Supreme Court upheld bans on possessing CSAM is not because it's obscene, but because it incentivizes abuse of children to produce it.

This is an extremely important point to understand. At face value, it can feel like CSAM should be protected speech, however repulsive. There are no laws against gore videos, though one might argue that death is worse than SA. However, we have substantial empirical evidence that CSAM directly contributes to offending behavior. We also acknowledge that participating in pornography requires consent, and that the contin…

> It misses the point to think that CSAM is illegal because it is "obscene".

Are you sure you're not the one missing the point here? You're replying to the tail end of branch of discussion about AI-generated imagery. Obscene is the only argument that works against it.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#298

Post by skissane »

basilikum wrote: post #294
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…

To play devil's advocate: child abuse is usually a crime without direct evidence. CSAM is child abuse but the perpetrator films their crime as evidence. Everyone else who obtains and keeps this material also holds evidence against themselves as the possession of it is the crime. Now for real: People often do not care a lot about child abuse. It does not affect them as it happens in private where they do not see it. C…

> CSAM is child abuse but the perpetrator films their crime as evidence

This isn't entirely true. In much of the Western world – outside the US – CSAM (or equivalent legal terms such as "child pornography", "child abuse material", "child exploitation material", etc) can include text, drawings, AI-generated imagery, etc, which no child was abused to create, indeed the child depicted in it may be entirely fictional. Canadian law goes so far as to treat material which "advocates or counsels" the commission of CSA as CSAM - which the Supreme Court of Canada insisted (in the 2001 case of R v Sharpe) doesn't include mere political advocacy for its legalisation (as in e.g. the NAMBLA Bulletin), although some will question whether that insistence actually cashes out in practice.

Now, as a father of school-aged children, I find the whole idea of groups like NAMBLA rather abhorrent – but, I'm hesitant about the government making it illegal for people to express abhorrent ideas, because there are likely ideas which you or I hold which somebody out there considers abhorrent.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#299

Post by tzs »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #158
layer8 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I’m decidedly pro-encryption, I don’t like this argument. If something is the right thing, it would still be the right thing when promoted for the wrong reasons, and if it’s the wrong thing, it’s still the wrong thing even when at present nobody has ulterior motives. When arguing against surveillance, the arguments should be on its merits, not on whether the current proponents happen to have ulterior motives.

> not on whether the current proponents happen to have ulterior motives. Even if the current proponents have no ulterior motive, and in fact live and die having done nothing negative with such power, it does not stop the next group in power from extending and abusing power, don't base laws on temporary trust of politicians.

This suffers from the "proves too much" problem. You are essentially arguing that government should only be given powers that cannot possibly ever be abused or be extended to where they can be abused. It is only an argument against government powers against CSAM because it is an argument against pretty much all government powers.

Arguments that have any chance of persuading a government not to do something (and the public not to support the government in doing that thing) have to a lot more specific than that.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#300

Post by jaharios »

mschuster91 wrote: post #272
Hasz wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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) Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well. The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blather…

> Vote in a literal tyrant.

Tyrant? You may disagree with him, but he got in through the system. Now if he doesn't get out that is another story.

Post reply on HN