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

The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

piotr.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 595 posts

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#121

Post by shapefrog »

daveidol wrote: post #113
phkahler wrote: post #108

I really don't get all the hype. This is not a backdoor as it's called in TFA. It's not Apple "reaching into your device". It is literally checking for specific images and reporting their presence to Apply if found. It's not using AI to analyze your photos or anything like that. It's looking for specific images, and only prior to uploading them to iCloud. It won't even flag your own nasty images because the hash won'…

Wait are you saying you get ads based on things you converse about out loud in the real world because your phone is listening to everything in your pocket? You know that is a myth and isn't true, right?

You saying one conspiracy is 100% true but another one is laugh out loud impossible?

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#122

Post by refulgentis »

gonehome wrote: post #6
querez wrote: post #2

I have a newborn at home, and like every other parent, we take thousands of pictures and videos of our newest family member. We took pictures of the very first baby-bath. So now I have pictures of a naked baby on my phone. Does that mean that pictures of my newborn baby will be uploaded to Apple for further analysis, potentially stored for indefinite time, shared with law enforcement?

It's worth reading this, which is basically the only good reporting I've seen on this topic: https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initia... There are legitimate things to be concerned about, but 99% of internet discussion on this topic is junk.

It's also not even wrong in so many ways that it really highlights how far DF has fallen over the years. Really ugly stuff, handwaving about hashing and nary a mention of perceptual hashing and collisions. Not a technology analysis of any sort.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#123

Post by kevinpet »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #94

in "Photos" app, in the bottom right corner there is a "search" icon. When I click it, and entering "beach", I can see photos I've made on the beach (or in the sea, near the beach). What does it mean? My (and your) photos are scanned and analyzed. I've heard literally zero noise about this feature - nobody was complaining (at least not loud enough to let me notice it). So, why the hell all of that fuzz is being raise…

What are those cases where they might be checked by humans? To determine whether it's an innocent baby bath? If you have naked photos of a partner which happen to hit a statistical match for certain patterns that are similar to CSAM? These aren't far fetched scenarios, these are exactly the most likely types of photos that would be likely flagged. Are you okay with those photos being passed around Apple's security review team for entertainment? Leaked to the press if you later run for office?

How about in 15 years when your small children aren't small? Is this the magical software that can tell the difference between 18 year old boobs and 17 year old? The danger isn't to child molesters, it's to people who get incorrectly flagged as child molesters and need to fight to prove their innocence.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#124

Post by bouncycastle »

querez wrote: post #2

I have a newborn at home, and like every other parent, we take thousands of pictures and videos of our newest family member. We took pictures of the very first baby-bath. So now I have pictures of a naked baby on my phone. Does that mean that pictures of my newborn baby will be uploaded to Apple for further analysis, potentially stored for indefinite time, shared with law enforcement?

My understanding is that you should not upload these photos to the cloud anyway. The cloud is not your computer and who knows, maybe apple engineers might be snooping on them, or there could be a hack and so on..Putting on the cloud is like sharing with Apple.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#125

Post by outworlder »

zionic wrote: post #77
baal80spam wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't work like that.

Yes it does, it uses fuzzy perceptual hashes not crypto hashes. So if your innocent baby pic looks similar enough to a previously tagged child abuse image then YES, it will flag you and send a copy to the feds. And before you correct me, the Apple employee will see a picture of your naked baby and hit “forward to NCMEC”, which… upon investigation is actually just the feds

IF there are multiple matches, IF it's going to icloud, THEN a 'derivative image' will be show for screening and IF deemed to be warranted, sent to NCMEC.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#126

Post by still_grokking »

madeofpalk wrote: post #91
still_grokking wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On... > The laws related to CSAM are very explicit. 18 U.S. Code § 2252 states that knowingly transferring CSAM material is a felony. (The only exception, in 2258A, is when it is reported to NCMEC.) In this case, Apple has a very strong reason to believe they are transferring CSAM material, and they are sending it to Apple -- not NCMEC. > It does not matt…

Don't you think that Apple has their own attorneys and lawyers?

Don't you think that telling people now that there will be a "check" at Apple before things get reported to NCMEC could be a PR lie to keep people calm?

They can easily say afterwards that they're "frankly" required to directly report any suspicion to enforcement agencies because "that's the law", and they didn't know because that was an oversight?

That would be just an usual PR strategy to "sell" something people don't like: Selling it in small batches works best. (If the batches are small enough people often don't even realize how the whole picture looks. Salami tactics are tried tool for something like that; used for example in politics day to day).

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#127

Post by rootusrootus »

still_grokking wrote: post #81
rootusrootus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple isn't looking at the actual image, but a derivative. Presumably their lawyers think this will be sufficient to shield them from accusations of possessing child porn.

"But look, I've re-compressed it with JPEG 80%. It's not THAT picture!". It would be interesting to hear what a court has to say if a child porn consumer would try to defend him/her with this "argument".

Love 'em or hate 'em, it is hard to believe Apple's lawyers haven't very carefully figured out what kind of derivative image will be useful to catch false positives but not also itself illegal CP. I assume they have in fact had detailed conversations on this exact issue with NCMEC.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#128

Post by samename »

Dah00n wrote: post #100
samename wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless those pictures are also in the NCMEC database, there won’t be a match.* * As addressed in the comments below, this isn’t entirely true: the hash looks for visually similar picture and there may be false positives.

That is not true. If you read what experts who actually do something to stop CP (unlike Apple) say there are proven false positives. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...

Thanks, I updated my comment.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#129

Post by EugeneOZ »

shapefrog wrote: post #114
EugeneOZ wrote: post #94

in "Photos" app, in the bottom right corner there is a "search" icon. When I click it, and entering "beach", I can see photos I've made on the beach (or in the sea, near the beach). What does it mean? My (and your) photos are scanned and analyzed. I've heard literally zero noise about this feature - nobody was complaining (at least not loud enough to let me notice it). So, why the hell all of that fuzz is being raise…

It turns out people liked it when their phone scanned their photos for 'selfie' or 'beach' for them. Apparently tagging 'child porn' on your photos for searching isnt the killer feature someone thought it might be.

Yeah :) Also, it's funny that Apple here goes for bigger risks: reputation, trust, all of that noise, then risks of false accusations. And for what? To help with stopping the pedophile networks.

“But no, wait, they want to use algorithms to scan my photos, it’s a privacy violation...”

Just wake up.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#130

Post by zepto »

roody15 wrote: post #17
czzr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only semi-good reason is it would enable E2E encryption in the cloud while still allowing detection of CSAM.

Except despite this being repeated over and over… Apple has not said anything about E2E

It’s also being repeated over and over that apple is doing this so they can later do some more evil scanning. They haven’t said anything about that either.
Post reply on HN