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

571–580 of 597 posts

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#571

Post by RajT88 »

brokenmachine wrote: post #368
RajT88 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas is particularly wild to me as a midwesterner. All the bibles and megachurches and all that and... They have strip clubs freaking everywhere! Really weird zoning laws as well - I recall seeing a strip club across the street from an Office Depot, next to a deli. The suburbs where I live, you have to go to a seedy part of town so you feel good and ashamed about it. lol Some TV shows rightfully take aim at this con…

My uninformed guess as a non-murican would be that it's just zoned as a business. I doubt there would be a special zoning category exclusively for strip clubs.

That varies from state to state, and even city to city.

Where I live "adult entertainment" businesses are forced in most cities to use industrial zoning, like in warehouse / factory districts.

In Texas, I guess it is a lot more restrictive, but most of those businesses are "grandfathered" in because they were built before the suburban areas got built up and the tougher zoning laws went into place.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#572

Post by Cider9986 »

inigyou wrote: post #440
anonymars wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp insists on having access to your contact list. Pro-privacy, it ain't. It's still a Meta product.

So does Signal.

Signal keeps contacts in a privacy-preserving way and It doesn't demand access (i guess WhatsApp doesn't either).

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#573

Post by Scroll_Swe »

wredcoll wrote: post #568
Scroll_Swe wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have an ancestor who was born there, it's now my country.

I am Swedish yes. Why should we take in the world? We took in most per capita in the Syrian crisis.

Where do you live and how many refugees did you take in?

I am seeing my country destroyed in real time so YES I am upset.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#575

Post by jcgl »

mannanj wrote: post #569
jcgl wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical people, maybe. Even if we hypothetically grant that vibe-coded backup systems can be trusted, deploying, using, and maintaining are still hurdles. And there’s absolutely no way that’s all tractable for the vast, vast majority of the population. Mind you, an average person probably doesn’t even really know what a server is. And these average people need backups just as much as (probably more than) people tec…

I think that product people are very much doing development with these tools; and trusting, deploying and maintaining them. The vast majority won’t even know the trust, deployment and maintenance challenges that technical people know and so they won’t worry about them and probably never will need to. Anything very risky will be eventually protected by exposure in the training data. Not unlike how you see in lovable l…

Even just by narrowing to some definition of "product people," you've cut out the vast majority of the population.

> Why does someone who says “I pay -$x for Google Drive, how much can we make our own clone for?” need to know what a server is? The natural language doesn’t necessitate the technical jargon.

My point wasn't specifically that they need to know what servers are. Rather, the point is that the average person who needs backups doesn't have the faintest inkling of the smallest fraction of what goes into a backup solution. For these people (the vast majority of the population), you'd need a truly new level of vibing than what exists today.

Looking at Lovable's homepage, their tagline is "Create apps and websites by chatting with AI." Your average person probably doesn't even understand that "apps and websites" are primary components of a backup solution.

https://xkcd.com/2501/

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#576

Post by amennox »

izacus wrote: post #214
GeekyBear wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he set up his device to upload his private data to Google, or did Google create an OS that automatically sent everyone's private data to their AI server for scanning without explicit consent?

Google Photos does ask you for consent when you run it. (It is, granted, a bit pushy about it and will ask multiple times when you run it with an intrusive dialog.)

[flagged]

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#577

Post by forshaper »

philipkglass wrote: post #331
forshaper wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why did Connecticut do it, as opposed to other states? I guess CA would've made sense for that example. I understand such events would be used to argue in favor of the policy, but it seems like if it was just the event, other states would've done the same. And other countries do it as well, without as salient an event.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#578

Post by philipkglass »

forshaper wrote: post #577
philipkglass wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why did Connecticut do it, as opposed to other states? I guess CA would've made sense for that example. I understand such events would be used to argue in favor of the policy, but it seems like if it was just the event, other states would've done the same. And other countries do it as well, without as salient an event.

California also limited body armor ownership in the wake of that shootout, though a court decision invalidated the law in 2009:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-20-la-me-bo...

The decade-old ban was enacted after the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, a confrontation between police and two heavily armored bank robbers that injured officers and civilians. The state Legislature passed the ban in 1998 as a measure to protect police.

The law was subsequently revised to pass court scrutiny and reinstated:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-reinstates...

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#579

Post by LanceH »

inigyou wrote: post #473
LanceH wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reading all our emails is also fucked up Why? are you hiding something in your email?

Nobody actually believes "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" but it's short for "I don't have the energy to deal with this when it's unlikely to actually create any consequences for me in particular"

> unlikely to actually create any consequences for me in particular

I was this play out in relation to rules/laws applied to those under age. Like harsher and harsher anti-drinking law. The same people who I know were drinking underage have suddenly seen the light and believe someone's life should be destroyed for also drinking underage.

Or drug testing. If using drugs is bad for some group of people, wouldn't it be even worse if the group overseeing them were to be using drugs? Start testing congress first.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#580

Post by danaris »

throwaway89864 wrote: post #542
danaris wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be even clearer, genuine effective age-appropriate sex education absolutely includes education on what it means to be trans, gay, bi, ace, and every other part of the queer rainbow, and that all of these things are just as good and normal as being straight, cis, etc. Take your bigotry and stuff it.

There is a distinction between teaching tolerance, celebrating diversity, vocal promotion of special interests and recruitment.

"Recruitment"? Do you think that queer people are "recruited"?

Do you think that queer people are a "special interest", like corn farmers?

No; that type of attitude is just run-of-the-mill queerphobia.

Young children need to be taught what gender identities are so that they will know if they are trans/nonbinary, so that they don't have to suffer for years or decades from gender dysphoria.

Slightly-older children need to be taught what sexual orientation is (the whole spectrum, including straight, gay, bi, and ace), so that they don't have to fumble their way through it, confused and often abused, and don't end up feeling like they're broken.

And intersex children desperately need to be taught about all of this and more, so that they don't have to suffer from all those problems plus not understanding why their body just doesn't fit any of the usual options.

Post reply on HN