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

311–320 of 597 posts

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#311

Post by derektank »

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…

>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government

No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution and the constitution requires an extreme super majority to update. A 50%+1 majority is all that’s required to ban civilian ownership of guns in most parliamentary systems, not so in the US. The culture is downstream of the law.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#312

Post by basilikum »

skissane wrote: post #298
basilikum wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Ca…

Fictional erotica portraying fictional children is not CSAM. There is no child abuse taking place as there is no child in the first place.

Conflating the two is 1. wrong as a matter of fact and ethics and 2. a great injustice to the victims of child abuse.

This is exactly what I wrote about in the second part of my comment. People see themselves as the victim of CSAM or proclaimed CSAM through being witness to it. In fictional works there is no child who could be the victim showing very clearly what these people are really about. They are not primarily concerned about children being exploited but they do not like the existence of such material as them deem it offensive to themselves.

CSAM is a very real crime; including cases where real children are not physically harmed but get sexualized through the composition of the material. It is a crime because it violates children, not because it is offensive to societal norms.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#313

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway17824 wrote: post #309
nativeit wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm taking a guess at what the OP meant, but people focus on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Supposedly most incidents and deaths are caused by handguns. They're more affordable, and easy to discretely keep on your person. A data-driven policy would focus on them first, but it's easier to rile up the public about AR-15s so we keep doing the less-effective thing.

[deleted]

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#314

Post by [deleted] »

dijit wrote: post #296
basilikum wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#315

Post by derektank »

ryandrake wrote: post #291
kryogen1c wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There’s no concrete evidence that anyone besides Epstein (and by extension Maxwell, who assisted Epstein) actually abused children. Besides the testimony of Virginia Giuffre, nobody else has claimed they were sexually assaulted as minors (Sjoberg was groped by Prince Andrew at Epstein’s home when she was in her early 20s). And neither the FBI nor the Palm Beach PD found physical evidence of such or communications between Epstein or others indicating this was going on.

Why would you expect anyone else to go to jail under those circumstances? Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt seems very unlikely

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#316

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

CSAM laws in many jurisdictions include computer generated or hand crafted media that do not pre-require CSA at all. The idea is that deviance leads to CSA, and by cracking down on CSAM, we are preventing CSA.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#317

Post by [deleted] »

jaharios wrote: post #300
mschuster91 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#318

Post by skissane »

basilikum wrote: post #312
skissane wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Ca…

Fictional erotica portraying fictional children is not CSAM. There is no child abuse taking place as there is no child in the first place. Conflating the two is 1. wrong as a matter of fact and ethics and 2. a great injustice to the victims of child abuse. This is exactly what I wrote about in the second part of my comment. People see themselves as the victim of CSAM or proclaimed CSAM through being witness to it. In…

> Fictional erotica portraying fictional children is not CSAM. There is no child abuse taking place as there is no child in the first place.

That’s your definition, but it isn’t the definition many authorities/activists/etc use.

And I’m not defending their definition, merely pointing out it is a real live definition in active use

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#319

Post by simondotau »

Zak wrote: post #129
trollbridge wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the client side scanning was to protect children? If it suspects an image is bad, it blurs it and pops up a warning including a link to resources to go to for help. Very different than trying to narc out users to the authorities.

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

While I didn’t agree with Apple’s approach, there is a subtle but IMHO critical nuance that is often forgotten about the client side scanning. It was only generating fingerprint material which Apple could decrypt and scan, alongside original images sent E2E encrypted to Apple servers. If the image wasn’t sent to Apple, the fingerprint wasn’t either.

And the reporting was still gated through Apple employees; there was no mechanism for the government to expand the scope without Apple’s knowledge.

I understand that people don’t like the idea of their personal hardware being complicit in treachery, but when considered from a purely functional perspective, apple’s proposal was no different to what Google and others were already doing.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#320

Post by forshaper »

throwaway17824 wrote: post #309
nativeit wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm taking a guess at what the OP meant, but people focus on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Supposedly most incidents and deaths are caused by handguns. They're more affordable, and easy to discretely keep on your person. A data-driven policy would focus on them first, but it's easier to rile up the public about AR-15s so we keep doing the less-effective thing.

One might wonder about why ceramic plates are controlled in Connecticut or New York.
Post reply on HN