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

171–180 of 557 posts

Re: One Bad Apple

#171

Post by nixnax »

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…

>Nearly 1 in 10 children in the US will be sexually abused before the age of 18.

That explains the rise in LGBT

Re: One Bad Apple

#172

Post by celeritascelery »

This made me think of a good point regarding apples error rate of “one in a trillion”. If they are so confident that there won’t be false positive’s why bother sending it to apple for manual review? Clearly they think the error rate will be high enough that a human has to double check everything. But that is not what they are saying.

Re: One Bad Apple

#173

Post by zug_zug »

slg wrote: post #148
zug_zug wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Too often the tech community's response is that the intangible concept of privacy is more important than the tangible issue of child abuse. Is it intangible? 18% of the world lives in China alone. That's more people than the "1/10 who are victims of child abuse*", and I'm sure that 18% will only grow as other authoritarian countries get more technologically advanced. I think "Think of the kids" applies very well to…

>Is it intangible? 18% of the world lives in China alone. That's more people than the "1/10 who are victims of child abuse*", and I'm sure that 18% will only grow as other authoritarian countries get more technologically advanced. You didn't mention any tangible results here. How would this system by Apple make my life worse? Can you answer that without a slippery slope argument? >I think "Think of the kids" applies…

>> You didn't mention any tangible results here. How would this system by Apple make my life worse? Can you answer that without a slippery slope argument?

That's a weird goal-post.

>> Why does the causality matter? A correlation is enough that cracking down on this content will result in less abusers on the streets.

Obviously of the people who look at cp, a higher percentage of those will be actual child abusers. The question for everybody is -- does giving those people a fantasy outlet increase or actually reduce the number of kids who get assaulted. At the end of the day that's what matters.

>> I wasn't the one citing that, but you are also citing an incomplete number since it excludes younger children.

[EDIT: Mistake] Well you didn't cite anything at all, and were off by a shockingly large number. Please cite something or explain why you made up a number.

Re: One Bad Apple

#174

Post by sk5t »

brailsafe wrote: post #160
hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Why did you specify "In a few days"?

It does make one wonder--careless work, trivial problem, reuse of existing projects, writer portrays self as extremely productive, or some combination?

Re: One Bad Apple

#175

Post by upbeat_general »

kemiller wrote: post #131
upbeat_general wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was never mentioned by Apple. If that was their intention then I suspect they would have mentioned it alongside this announcement to provide a justification and quell the (justified) outrage. I also question the value of e2e there’s an arbitrary scanner that can send back the unencrypted files if it finds a match. If apple’s servers controls the db with “hashes” to match then is it all that different from apple’…

They don’t send unencrypted full-res files, they send low res “visual representation” and can only decode if they get > x “hits”. Assuming it works as described I do think it’s better than just having full keys as they do now. And why else would they go to all this trouble? They can scan images now on their servers if that’s what they want.

Low-res I suppose is better but...If it's enough for a human to tell whether it's CSAM or not, it's probably high-res enough to be a significant invasion of privacy in case of a mistake.

Also the > x "hits" part is a good feature assuming that the database only looks for CSAM. Otherwise it's useless (not to mention totally unauditable).

My guess is that they're doing it on device because they've had several years of marketing and proclaiming that "everything is done on-device" so to implement CSAM scanning server side would go against that. Maybe they thought this would somehow look better to the average consumer who thinks "on-device" is automatically better?

Re: One Bad Apple

#176

Post by nappy »

nixnax wrote: post #171
hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Nearly 1 in 10 children in the US will be sexually abused before the age of 18. That explains the rise in LGBT

No - but this comment is abhorrent.

Re: One Bad Apple

#177

Post by celeritascelery »

DethNinja wrote: post #164

There is one particular thing I don’t understand about this Apple policy: You can buy a SIM card and send images to your enemies/competitors through WhatsApp, and these images automatically gets downloaded to iPhone and potentially uploaded to iCloud. What precautions are Apple taking against such actions? Or will it be some kind of exploitable implementation where you can easily swat any person you want and let them…

I know of no messaging app the “automatically” uploads to iCloud. And what sort of idiot would try and send CP using a messenger app (almost all of which CASM detection). That’s like trying to smuggle drugs past the TSA so you can put them in someone’s house to frame them.

Re: One Bad Apple

#178

Post by brailsafe »

sk5t wrote: post #174
brailsafe wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Why did you specify "In a few days"?

It does make one wonder--careless work, trivial problem, reuse of existing projects, writer portrays self as extremely productive, or some combination?

Ya, it's hard to interpret it differently, so was curious. Don't know why I'm being downvoted for a question about rhetorical intention.

Re: One Bad Apple

#179

Post by [deleted] »

zionic wrote: post #109
judge2020 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice Stopping to that level is what they want, CNN: “‘privacy activists’ have released a tool to allow the spread of CP”

If that’s how they play then the only winning move is to respond in kind. >shadowy government affiliated agency abuses its role of protecting children to install malware on a billion devices

[deleted]

Re: One Bad Apple

#180

Post by Sebb767 »

reidjs wrote: post #89
l33t2328 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m one of the people and that’s not my way. I wonder where you got your data from.

This made me come up with a thought experiment. If you sampled a thousand parents and asked them if they think sex offenders deserve a fair and just trial, what do you think the result would be?

That question is framed wrong. What you should be asking is "Should people accused of such crimes get a fair and just trial?". This makes it clear that it takes me one sentence to put you in that very position. And that's exactly the problem. Your formulation erases any question of guilt, which makes the discussion nearly impossible to win for the privacy side.
Post reply on HN