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

331–340 of 597 posts

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#331

Post by philipkglass »

forshaper wrote: post #320
throwaway17824 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It looks like Connecticut first enacted body armor regulations in 1998, the year after the North Hollywood police shootout with a pair of heavily armed and armored men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo...

It's hard to find 1998 news articles about it now, but I would guess that the law was a reaction to this high profile crime.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#332

Post by wang_li »

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…

No part of Europe has “simply banned guns”. Some countries have stricter policies but it’s possibly to own a gun in every country. Some countries are famous for gun ownership, eg switzerland that expects men to keep their militarily issued gun in the home.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#333

Post by phoghed »

derektank wrote: post #311
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…

>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 parliamen…

Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#334

Post by teaearlgraycold »

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.

What’s up with the cop that cited them for that?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#336

Post by phoghed »

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

No, it seems more like you are being disingenuous. All you have to do is drop a link to the rates you’re referring to. Instead you’re just arguing semantics. Where’s the receipts?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#337

Post by teaearlgraycold »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #316
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.

The US constitution should require proof of harm to a living thing as a prerequisite for criminal charges.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#338

Post by phoghed »

djoldman wrote: post #51

I am not a lawyer. There is something ironic about US laws that attempt to prevent crime A by outlawing action B. For example: * A: physical sexual abuse of children. B: possession or distribution of CSAM * A: drug trafficking or tax evasion. B: structured cash withdrawals The irony is that the more B is prevented, the less A can be detected and the less B can be used as evidence of A. It's my understanding that conv…

[flagged]

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#339

Post by duskwuff »

bayindirh wrote: post #35
avidiax wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is crazy people think apple isnt on the side of privacy. > It also ensured pressure from governments and plaintiffs, including CSAM victims, who preferred Apple’s more interventionist approaches, which Apple had voluntarily demonstrated it was willing to do. I feel that Apple open pandora's box with the client-side scanning. It proved that it was technically feasible, and was "privacy preserving". I use scare qu…

> It proved that it was technically feasible, and was "privacy preserving". Didn't their paper disproved by reversing the perceptual hashes to reveal blurred version of the images being hashed, and Apple basically said "that's fair, it's not as robust as we wanted, let's visit this later"? If not, I'll happily stand corrected, but please share sources. Addenda: - Apple's original paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20…

There's actually been some work to reverse the original PhotoDNA hash, with much more precise results than for Apple's NeuralHash:

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?archives/931-Pho...

https://anishathalye.com/inverting-photodna/

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#340

Post by AnimalMuppet »

phoghed wrote: post #338
djoldman wrote: post #51

I am not a lawyer. There is something ironic about US laws that attempt to prevent crime A by outlawing action B. For example: * A: physical sexual abuse of children. B: possession or distribution of CSAM * A: drug trafficking or tax evasion. B: structured cash withdrawals The irony is that the more B is prevented, the less A can be detected and the less B can be used as evidence of A. It's my understanding that conv…

[flagged]

This is probably across the line for being a "personal attack". Those are against site rules. Please don't do this here.
Post reply on HN