Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Bad Apple

hackerfactor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 557 posts

Re: One Bad Apple

#111

Post by kemayo »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #105
kemayo wrote: post #100

> To reiterate: scanning your device is not a privacy risk, but copying files from your device without any notice is definitely a privacy issue. I think the article is wrong about this. Or, right-but-situationally-irrelevant. As far as I can tell from Apple's statements, they're doing this only to photos which are being uploaded to iCloud Photos. So, any photo this is happening to is one that you've already asked App…

So.. how well does "human review" work with copyright on youtube? This is basically fearmongering, and saying "if you're not a pedo, you have nothing to fear", installing the tech on all phones, and then using that tech to find the next wikileaks leaker (who was the first person with this photo), trump supporters (just add the trump-beats-cnn-gif to the hashes), anti-china protesters (winnie the pooh photos), etc. Th…

I was pointing out an inaccuracy in the article, not commenting about whether or not this tech is a good idea. I think if we're opposed to it, we should avoid misrepresenting it in arguments.

On which note... it really does seem to be voluntary, as there's an easy opt-out of the process in the form of "not using iCloud Photos". Or Google Photos, or assorted other services, which apparently all do similar scanning.

Yes, there's a slippery-slope argument here, but the actual service-as-it-exists-today really does seem scoped to a cautious examination of possible child porn that's being uploaded to Apple's servers.

Re: One Bad Apple

#112

Post by charles_f »

> So where else could they get 1 trillion pictures?

That's a real kicker in my opinion. Unless they get training data from NCMEC I struggle to understand how they're training their model? Unless it's entirely algorithmic and not based on ML?

Re: One Bad Apple

#113

Post by tylersmith »

fumar wrote: post #47
anonymouse008 wrote: post #35

This feels like missing the forest from the trees — Steve Jobs said many times to the effect ‘it doesn’t matter how any of this stuff happens, GigaHertz, Ram, Speeds, it only matters that the user gets what they want.’ Right now Apple’s biggest unhappy user is the DOJ. As it stands with the legislation coming down the pipe and both previous administrations building on a keenness to ‘get something done’ about big tech…

Why do elected officials act as fake representatives to the people that elected them in the first place? Has it always been this way? It doesn’t matter left or right. The governing bodies should obey the people not the other way around.

> The governing bodies should obey the people not the other way around.

Then they wouldn't be the governing body. By definition the governing body does not obey the people; they govern the people.

Re: One Bad Apple

#114

Post by netr0ute »

kelnos wrote: post #86
netr0ute wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That code is not accessible to us. Not to tools like IDA and Ghidra

No, the tool that reports to NCMEC is on Apple employee workstations (or a private server). The stuff running in the iPhone essentially just flags things as possibly-CSAM, after which someone at Apple verifies it. Now, I suppose you could DDoS Apple's verification process. Either way, though, it's not like anyone who would do either of these things would win any points in the court of popular opinion. I can see the h…

> "Hackers Disable Apple's CSAM Reporting Tools; Legitimate CSAM Reports Get Lost"

What website are we on?

Re: One Bad Apple

#115

Post by hackerfactor1 »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #7

NCMEC has essentially shows that they have zero regard for privacy and called all privacy activists "screeching voices of the minority". At the same time, they're at the center point of a highly opaque, entrenched (often legally mandated) censorhip infrastructure that can and will get accounts shut down irrecoverably and possibly people's homes raided, on questionable data: In one of the previous discussions, I've se…

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper.

I'm the author.

I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-face development discussions, other times it have been remote communications. To me, there are different independent parts working inside NCMEC.

The CyberTipline and their internal case staff are absolutely incredible. They see the worst of people in the media and reports that they process. They deal with victims and families. And they remain the kindest and most sincere people I've ever encountered. When possible, I will do anything needed to make their job easier.

The IT group has gone through different iterations, but they are always friendly and responsive. When I can help them, I help them.

When I interact with their legal staff, they are very polite. But I rarely interact with them directly. On occasion, they have also given me some very bad advice. (It might be good for them. But, as my own attorney pointed out, it is generally over-reaching in the requested scope.)

The upper management that I have interacted with are a pain in the ass. If it wasn't for the CyberTipline, related investigators, and the IT staff, I would have walked away (or minimized my interactions) long ago.

Why haven't I made my whitepaper about PhotoDNA public? In my view, who would it help? It would help bad guys avoid detection and it will help malcontents manufacture false-positives. The paper won't help NCMEC, ICACs, or related law enforcement. It won't help victims.

About this time, someone usually mocks "it's always about the kids, think about the kids." To those critics: They have not seen the scope of this problem or the long term impact. There is nearly a 1-to-1 relationship between people who deal in CP and people who abuse children. And they rarely victimize just one child. Nearly 1 in 10 children in the US will be sexually abused before the age of 18.

Re: One Bad Apple

#116

Post by borland »

The "legal" section talks about local scanning, and possible transmission of CSAM from devices to Apple, in pursuit of verification, however Apple have made clear that the scanning happens only for files that have been uploaded to iCloud Photo Library -- in which case they are not deliberately transmitting the CSAM but rather flagging something which the user already sent them.

Likewise the copyright issue; The user has already sent these files to Apple themselves by enabling iCloud photo library, and Apple are not making any additional copies that I am aware of.

It also says "The problem is that you don't know which pictures will be sent to Apple." - but we do know exactly which pictures will and will not be sent to apple; the ones that are already sent by iCloud Photo library.

[To be clear, I don't like the precedent/slippery slope that this kind of technique might lead towards in the future, but it doesn't seem like all the criticisms of it today are valid]

Re: One Bad Apple

#117

Post by 8ytecoder »

buraktamturk wrote: post #78
whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we investigated this author if they do in fact run a photo service we would inevitably find that unless they are incompetent they have to moderate content, either blind or based on flags. So if apple is going to jail for child porn because they moderate / report content after flagging (this is normally actually required to do - report it), then this article writer should be going to jail as well - I guarantee his…

Well there is a difference as stated on the article that they don't expect to see CP or CSAM and says "We are not 'knowingly' seeing it since it makes up less than 0.06% of the uploads ... We do not intentionally look for CP." Whereas Apple is moderating the suspected images so they intentionally look for CP (which, according to the author and his lawyer, is a crime).

Yeah, as usual I'm worried the people who claim that others don't read are the ones not reading (or being able to comprehend) what the author is trying to say. To me it seems like moderation in general is fine. What Apple is doing here is that after they receive a flag that a certain threshold is crossed, they manually review the material. The author states that no one should do that i.e., the law explicitly prohibits anyone even trying to verify. If you suspect CP, you got to forward it to NCMEC and be done with that.

I 100% understand why Apple doesn't want to do that - automatic forwarding - they're clearly worried about false positives. I also think Apple has competent lawyers. It's entirely possible that the author and their lawyers' interpretation could be wrong (a possibility).

Point is - the author isn't trying to say moderation is illegal.

Re: One Bad Apple

#118

Post by shkkmo »

hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #7

NCMEC has essentially shows that they have zero regard for privacy and called all privacy activists "screeching voices of the minority". At the same time, they're at the center point of a highly opaque, entrenched (often legally mandated) censorhip infrastructure that can and will get accounts shut down irrecoverably and possibly people's homes raided, on questionable data: In one of the previous discussions, I've se…

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper. I'm the author. I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-f…

> Why haven't I made my whitepaper about PhotoDNA public? In my view, who would it help?

Would it help activists push for more accurate technology and better management for NCMEC? Would it help technologists come up with better algorithms? I see all kinds of benefits to more openess and accountability here.

Re: One Bad Apple

#119

Post by casefields »

cromwellian wrote: post #88

I don't see many people pushing back on the child pornography laws themselves that are the cause of this. I'm stepping into a hornets nest by even bringing this up, because any criticism of the laws on the books makes one look they're a pedo, so I'll preface by saying, child pornography (filmed with actual kids) is vile and disgusting, but it is the production of it that is evil to be fought and suppressed, not the p…

There's a reason they always promote the most extreme cases to restrict liberty:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — HL Mencken

Re: One Bad Apple

#120

Post by alisonkisk »

antman wrote: post #18

There are a lot of articles about Apples hadh algorithm and for me they are mostly irrelevant to the main problem. The main problem is that Apple has backdoored my device. More types of bad images or other files will be scanned since now apple does not have plausible deniablity to defend any of ghe government’x requests. In the future a false? positive that happened? to be of a political file that crept in the list c…

Apple has front-doored your device from Day 1.
Post reply on HN