491–500 of 597 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI you are shadowbanned. Did you write this comment with AI? If you did, that's why.
No... does it look like I did somewhere? Ah well...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is correct. Also, the people who produce CSAM usually don't just stop, so tracking down material, especially new and unknown, is one of the most important ways to stop active abuse. Also because the material is actual proof and many (C)SA cases fail due to lack of exactly that. This doesn't mean I agree with active scanning of things like iCloud, effectively making everyone a suspect, but counter to what people…
> the material is actual proof How do you square this with fictional material being illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 bet…
It's actually pretty easy to prove guilt in the US. But it becomes a lot harder the longer the distance from the crime. In particular, witnesses die or leave. Heck, investigators die or leave which makes discovery for the perpetrator even harder on the FBI.
Further, the bar for civil litigation is lower than criminal. The FBI refusing to prosecute means that victims have a very hard time pursuing civil cases even if the FBI were to lose their case. The FBI has way more evidence that a victim can have.
The most non-nefarious but still shitty reason I can think of for why the FBI hasn't gone to trial is because they know each of these cases will be long and expensive because of the perpetrators. That's caused them to collect way more evidence than they would have if this were just a normal person.
Funny how the FBI is only careful and pensive when perpetrators are rich.
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. for the UK, there has been a massive shift to prevent this kind of stuff. anyone who even volunteers with children or vulnerable adults needs to be screened. Charities are required to have policies for dealing with vulnerable people safely. but to the point, Apple halfarse CSAM reporting. Whatsapp which doesn't do "CSAM scanning" reports in one hour more CSAM than…
as far as i am aware, that is common practice in many countries. the problem is that screening is typically a quick check of "has this person been suspected or arrested for something involving minors already" and perhaps a few questions on a piece of paper. its not like they give everyone volunteering for a fieldtrip an extensive 1:1 with a psychologist and an mri. any predator who has not previously been caught will easily pass screening.
>From memory meta (instgram, facebook and whatsapp) reported millions of cases of CSAM for 2021, compared to apple's ~250 (not thousand, just 250)
easy enough to explain. instagram and facebook are social media with billions of public posts. whatsapp is in a similar enough boat, with large (up to 1000 participants?) facebook-like groups of otherwise strangers and a lot of marketing and inertia for social-media-like use.
i imagine instagram is a majority of it. it's disgusting on there.
on the other hand, apple is not a social media company nor facilitates large group chats (imessage goes up to 32 participants).
i doubt adding an easier UX for reporting would make a material difference in the number of reports apple submits because you're typically already talking with people you know when using imessage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well No, that's some bullshit. How do you think we eat pheasant and rabbit and venison? Show me a pheasant farm and I'll show you forty acres of unfenced woodland littered with empty cartridges. Observe! https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-owner...
My guess is the person is drawing from one country and applying it to all. The rules are varied all over the EU. e.g. You can buy pheasant, rabbit and venison at the butcher shop where I live. No hunting required, which you can do but requires a special permit, next to the weapons permit for the shotgun and is very limited in scope.
I like your attitude of charity - we should not rush into judgement. But mschuster91's comment said:
> most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians
This is bullshit. GP must be aware that they are profoundly ignorant on the topic, so why are they holding an opinion, let alone posting it? Should we tolerate bullshit on HN?
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…
In Sweden we're going to literally have Minority Report style pre-crime registries for potential child molesters. We already have one for potential domestic abusers. Fuck this country. I need to get out of here before it gets worse.
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…
The lowest of the low hanging political points scoring fruit will be picked. I make this point on HN each time it comes up: Dealing with actual CSA requires actual people going to investigate actual reports of children's living conditions out in the real world, not "scanning digital files". Seems obvious when you say it like that, but the alternative seems to still score heavily on the political scale. Ironically, sp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and this is very clearly unconstitutional. "shall not be infringed" is very very plain and simple
Yep, alongside "Congress shall make no law" which says it's fine for anyone who isn't Congress to infringe your free speech, or for Congress to do it in any way that isn't making a law.
At the end of the day, judges have the ability to clear away silly logic like that, it's part of their job.
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…
Engineers tend to be too people-pleasing. When someone from management asks "can you scan devices for CSAM without violating privacy?" the answer should not be "hmm... well... maybe if we did it this way it could work". The answer you should give us "no" or to hedge your bets "I don't think so". Same to the government and the court. In particular a court isn't asking for a statement of objective reality whether it's…
Edit: There are some rare competent managers who will stop the enquiry before even asking the engineers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
1. How many years ago was the iCloud Keychain API introduced? 2. Why in't there any UI in iOS yet to view and delete that data without using those apps, asking them nicely, and trusting them to do it? 3. Why aren't users informed about apps storing data that will carry across app reinstalls, device reinstalls, and to all your other devices?
2. Why would there be? Apple building a UI for people to accidentally fuck up their apps sounds like the exact kind of thing Apple would never do on iOS.
3. Users are already informed when an app wants to track them. Beyond that, having an app store data so that it carries across reinstalls and to all my other devices is what I would expect my apps to do. If I uninstall an app and reinstall it later, I want it to pick up where I left off, not with a blank slate.