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

321–330 of 597 posts

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#321

Post by nozzlegear »

Razengan wrote: post #215
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 people think apple isnt on the side of privacy. Look up the "iCloud Keychain" API: For years Apple has let and helped Facebook, TikTok, Tinder etc. track users even after you delete an app, even ACROSS DEVICES and DEVICE RESETS. There's no way to even SEE what data the apps have stored on your device & iCloud account on iOS, only through the macOS Keychain Access app. Even then you can't be sure that th…

It's misleading to claim that Apple has "let and helped Facebook, TikTok, Tinder etc. track users [...]" using the keychain API. The persistence you're talking about, which those companies exploit, is a side effect of how the API works, not an intentional surveillance feature. Furthermore, it's not some special API that those big companies made a deal with Apple to get access to – any iOS dev can use it.

It's a real flaw that they should've fixed a long time ago, but your conspiratorial framing makes it seem like Apple colluded with Facebook et al. to end run their own privacy protections, while ignoring the fact that Apple's App Tracking Transparency feature has cost Facebook billions.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#322

Post by fortran77 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #259
fortran77 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still don’t want to throw kids in prison or remove all traces of a right to privacy in our haste to sun-yeet them. The one messy corner of this is the "strict liability" for this type of material. An underage kid can take a nude photo, send it to an adult, and then the adult can criminally liable for just having it, even if he deleted it as soon as he saw it. Either both parties involved in handing something for…

> has to be changed so a person isn't liable if he deletes or reports the material as soon as he first becomes aware of it AFAIK that's more or less how it works today as a practical matter. The law recognizes this situation as an affirmative defense, but does not make it impossible to be charged. To be an affirmative defense it has to be reported immediately or destroyed, constitute three images or less, and not be…

We shouldn't rely on selective, "practical" enforcement of the law though.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#323

Post by rationalist »

fluoridation wrote: post #306
rationalist wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rates So something like 1 per 100,000; which of course is still 1 too many. (The other comments in other branches seem to prove my point. I am not defending any institution by the way. No one should be covering up crimes and/or allowing criminals to victimize people further.)

"Rate" is an ambiguous word. Molested children per year is a rate just as molested children per total children is. >something like 1 per 100,000 What is this? What number are you citing, and where are you getting it from?

I've never heard anyone say that a rate is ambiguous.

It seems like you're trying to be disingenuous, first with "rate", now with my clearly-arbitrary example of rate.

> something like

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#324

Post by arijun »

Manuel_D wrote: post #200
arijun wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clicking on a page linked in your article, the PROTECT Act of 2003[1] (passed a year later), I see: > The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against obscene illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography... had been ruled unconstitutional... The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requ…

But crucially: > However, the court did not reverse its holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard

Unless I’m misunderstanding it wrong, any kind of porn would pass the first two prongs of the Miller test: it’s for purient purposes and it has depictions of sexual acts. As for the third prong, I’m sure some porn out there has literary merit, but I would guess the vast, vast majority would not.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#325

Post by fluoridation »

rationalist wrote: post #323
fluoridation wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rate" is an ambiguous word. Molested children per year is a rate just as molested children per total children is. >something like 1 per 100,000 What is this? What number are you citing, and where are you getting it from?

I've never heard anyone say that a rate is ambiguous. It seems like you're trying to be disingenuous, first with "rate", now with my clearly-arbitrary example of rate. > something like

A rate is just a ratio between two quantities. You've never heard speed defined as the rate of movement?

I might have interpreted your example as such if not for the "one too many" comment. It's strange to throw out a completely fictitious figure and then lament it as if it's real.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#326

Post by r3trohack3r »

kstrauser wrote: post #24
twuopf wrote: post #8

I know creating a throwaway to hide your name for an opinion is a bad manner, but this one is one I really don’t want linked back to me The VAST majority of “CSAM” is consensually created and exchanged by teens. Their future selves and their parents form this pressure group attacking everyone’s liberty and privacy to try to undo the downsides of choices they made themselves with full knowledge of what could happen. T…

I think you’re right, but from another angle. In the state where I lived way back when, a state representative put forth a bill to explicitly make e-CSAM illegal. I guess it was already illegal for print media and this covered a gap in the law about cell phone pics, etc. Thing is, it had no allowance for the age of the picture taker, or even whether the picture taker was the photo subject. If a 16 year old girl took…

> To my surprise, he wrote back in horror to say he hadn’t considered that and pulled the bill immediately. I’m proud of having done that.

Stories like this give me hope - thank you for sharing

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#327

Post by rationalist »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #284
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 nak…

> 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.

My school did not cover that (but at least my parents did).

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#328

Post by basilikum »

skissane wrote: post #318
basilikum wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To clarify, I am aware you are objectively describing the legal situation. I am not making a legal, but an ethical argument. We seem to be agreeing.

There is even a Wikipedia article about the legality. It's quite complicated in a lot of places because people really like to ban it but it very much is free speech or protected artistic expression in countries that have these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...

To be clear fictional pornography about real children has to be distinguished from fictional characters. Even when the depiction is purely fictional. Sexualizing real children is unacceptable.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#329

Post by wang_li »

nativeit wrote: post #282
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…

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

The second militia act of 1792. Though that required you to have a gun. Which in some fashion required monitoring. In modern times many states require you to have a permit to own a firearm and states regularly prosecute people without a license. In Washington state they have laws about safe storage and the police can come into your house to inspect your storage solution without if someone calls them and says you aren’t storing it properly. There’s a constant stream of cases fighting these laws in court. In the 2025-2026 SCOTUS term there were 14 petitions for cert.

https://scotus2a.com/

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#330

Post by NordStreamYacht »

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…

These laws are a pretext to remove anonymity on the internet and insert backdoors into everything.
Post reply on HN