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

Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 860 posts

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#181

Post by Wowfunhappy »

slg wrote: post #173
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, perhaps many regular users do understand the separation, and that's why this issue is getting so much attention.

Is this issue getting much attention outside of tech circles? I have seen a few news stories here or there, but nothing major. I have not heard a word about it from any of my non-tech friends or from the non-tech people I follow on social media. Meanwhile people on HN are acting as if this is one of the biggest stories of the year with multiple posts on it every day. There is a huge separation in the importance that…

I mean, absent a gallop poll there's really no way to know, but we were discussing this at my office today, and I work at a graphic design studio, not a software development firm.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#182

Post by brokenmachine »

systemvoltage wrote: post #49

Regarding smartphones, I wonder if we’ve just lost a grip on what it means to have privacy. Even our expectations for privacy have degraded and eroded over time. We just carry this device with our life encoded in a flash chip with keys to cloud access. Life . Everything from emails to our walking gait, photos, text, history, health records, etc is stored on this one device. Dictators of the past would have a field da…

Governments have wilfully not kept up with the technology, so they can spy on it all.

Imagine if the government suddenly decided that they would open and scan everyone's physical mail into a permanent database. Why should email be any different?

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#183

Post by stjohnswarts »

farmerstan wrote: post #156
jonplackett wrote: post #5

In their attempt to make this extra private by scanning 'on device', I think they've managed to make it feel worse. If they scan my iCloud photos in iCloud, well lots of companies scan stuff when you upload it. It's on their servers, they're responsible for it. They don't want to be hosting CSAM. It feels much worse them turning your own, trusty iPhone against you. I know that isn't how you should look at it, but tha…

In a few years, all the pedophiles will stop using iPhone, and then only innocent people will be scanned in perpetuity. Remember, if someone makes new CSAM, it won't match any hashes so even "new" pedophiles won't get caught by this. So really, the steady state is just us regular folks getting scanned. As the years go on, what is defined as CSAM will morph into "objectionable material", and will then include "misinfo…

Apple just announce I would posit it will be a few weeks, not a few years. This news is everywhere.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#184

Post by nonameiguess »

dragonwriter wrote: post #85
greyface- wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constitutional rights can be voluntarily waived.

> Constitutional rights can be voluntarily waived. That...varies. The right to a speedy trial can be waived. The right against enslavement cannot. You can consent to a warrantless or otherwise unreasonable search given adequate specificity, but outside of a condition for release from otherwise-constitutional more severe deprivation of liberty (e.g., parole from prison) I don't think it can be generally waived in adva…

You can definitely consent to giving up the right to not be subject to warrantless search and seizure. Everyone who ever joins the military under UCMJ allows their commander to conduct random inspections of personal property at any unannounced time.

There are limitations, of course. If you live off-post in private housing, your commander has no legal authority to inspect it. They can only go through your stuff if you live in government-owned housing.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#185

Post by busymom0 »

endisneigh wrote: post #8
geofft wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, do you have a recommendation for non-cloud services that provide me with automatic backups of everything I do if something happens to my apartment, or open-source services that are free of all security flaws allowing hackers to compromise your privacy? Like I wholeheartedly get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure what realistic alternatives look like.

Use a photo client on an android phone, encrypt the photos and use NextCloud (self-hosted). Make sure your certificates are up-to-date. Reverse this process on another client to see the photos.

Unfortunately since iOS doesn't allow changing default Camera app, using a third party photo client is not that easy.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#186

Post by stjohnswarts »

tpush wrote: post #163
petermcneeley wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poem begins with "First they came for the socialists.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ...

'Communists' instead of 'socialists' actually; the US version is inaccurate due to anti-communist propaganda.

Do you have a source for that?

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#187

Post by AlexandrB »

gonehome wrote: post #160
eCa wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how it is better? If they only scanned icloud I can choose to not use that. If they scan on my iphone my choice would be to stop using that and get a gphone instead.

It only runs if you have iCloud photos enabled. Then it only runs client side and alerts if there are matches to CSAM hashes above some threshold. The other way is it runs against unencrypted images in iCloud and they'd know of any match. The new method also paves the way for the iCloud photos to be encrypted (they're currently not).

> It only runs if you have iCloud photos enabled.

The detailed specifics of this would be interesting to know. If I accidentally flip iCloud photos on and then turn it off within a few minutes, would that give the system license to scan all my photos once? What if my phone is in airplane mode and I turn iCloud photos on? Will the system scan photos and create vouchers offline for later upload?

Edit: On a related note, will turning on iCloud photos now come with a modal prompt and privacy warning so you're fully informed and can't do it "by accident"? Pardon my ignorance if this happens already. I've never turned mine on and am not about to start.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#188

Post by pehtis »

perardi wrote: post #117
pehtis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, thats exactly how i feel. I'd still hate it if my iCloud uploads are scanned but I'm already assuming that anyway. But the fact that my iOS device can potentially report me to any authorities, for whatever reason, is crossing a line that makes it impossible to ever own an iPhone again. I bought my first one in 2007 so I'm not saying this lightly.. Does anybody know if this policy will extend to macOS too?

I think you’re going to have to go to a flip phone, then. Not to be, uh, flippant. Because this feels like a rather obvious slippery slope that Google will be compelled to slide down as well. Feels like the only way to avoid such a thing would be dumb phone + Linux laptop/desktop.

I wouldn't go that far. I need something with a decent browser at the very least.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#189

Post by jdavis703 »

slg wrote: post #155
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you are saying you have nothing to fear because you aren't hiding anything? No, I'm saying that if you're hiding something, maybe don't give it to someone else.

"I'm not giving my photos to anyone. I am just taking photos on my phone and Apple is automatically backing them up to iCloud. I have no idea how that feature was turned on or how to turn it off." ~ most normal people. People here too often only think of these issues from the perspective of the type of person who browses HN. Apple is thinking of this from the perspective of an average iPhone users.

You have to configure iCloud backups when setting up a phone for the first time. Someone who is non-technical, but privacy conscious isn’t going to do this.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#190

Post by busymom0 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #64
ahnick wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are acting on behalf of the government.

AFAICT, they are not. But if you have evidence that this is government directed (reporting results tonthe government isn’t sufficient for the private party’s action to be “on behalf of” government for Constitutional purposes), please, present it.

The problem is that this is very hard to prove since government is a black box.

Take this example where Pelosi, one of the richest members of Congress has personal calls with Tim Cook where she also holds her most worth stock of 17%:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/nancy-and-paul-pelosi-makin...

Post reply on HN