181–190 of 393 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s where I’m at. They could have just started doing this without even saying anything at all.
But in that case they would eventually be caught red-handed and won't get to do the "for the children" spiel and get it swept under the rug like it's about to be.
In other HN comments on this subject I've (hopefully) made it clear that I'm not really in favor of this project of Apple's, and that there's a legitimate "slippery slope" argument to be made here. So I hope people will entertain a contrarian question without downvoting me into oblivion. :) Here's the thing I keep circling around: assume that bad actors, government or otherwise, want to target political dissidents us…
I thought this was the implementation for the EU. If it was - it was fast?
Who's to say authoritarian governments don't team up? We just saw this happen over the last decade with the rise of nationalism everywhere.
We already know governments can put significant pressure on private companies. Don't capitulate, Apple. Blow the whistle. You're getting screwed and you have our support if you just stand up for what you said 5 years ago.
What’s not discussed in this Paper is how it won’t be used by third-party actors to falsely accuse someone. Does nobody remember the iCloud hack? What about instead of downloading Jennifer Lawrence’s photos, a hacker uploaded children to get someone falsely accused?
Google, Microsoft and a bunch of other services already scan for CSAM materials, yet this hasn’t been an issue so far. In fact I can’t really find a single case when someone was framed like this, despite how easy it is to fill someone’s account with CSAM and call the cops/wait. I don’t like the privacy and property rights issues of this but the whole someone will use this to frame someone is quite BS.
2) if it is detected as a plant. Would you know it? Would it fly above our radar? There is evidence this happens [1], some cases are quite high profile [2].
3) This technique is already in use. Russia is allegedly using it to discredit opponents [3]. Do you think you would hear from it if it was done by secret services of any country to discredit or get rid of foreign targets or even some at home?
4) it's the ultimate weapon against foes and opponents. It's a dangerous one but I have to wonder how many estranged spouses get revenge planting evidence [4], or how many journalists or troublemakers have been the recipient of some carefully crafted planting. I mean, nearly anyone reading HN could do it sufficiently well to get someone in serious trouble, it's not really a technical issue so it's not hard to imagine it's being done.
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/handyman-planted...
[2]: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/shaq-hit-with-lawsuit-for...
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/world/europe/vladimir-put...
[4]: https://www.crimeonline.com/2019/07/04/wife-plants-child-por...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And there is no way to audit that the database is what they claim it is, doesn't contain multiple databases that can be activated under certain conditions, etc. Although this is true, the same argument already applies to "your phone might be scanning all your photos and stealthily uploading them" -- Apple having announced this program doesn't seem to have changed the odds of that. At some point you have to trust yo…
Which is why I am confused by a lot of this backlash. Apple already controls the hardware, software, and services. I don't see why it really matters where in that chain the scanning is done when they control the entire system. If Apple can't be trusted with this control today, why did people trust them with this control a week ago?
It's better to be forthright, or you risk your valuation on the whims of a single employee.
It might well be a genetic heritage. Being trusted in a tribe is crucial to survival, and so is likely wired deep into our social psychology.
Apple is making a mistake by ignoring that. This isn’t about people not trusting Apple. It’s about people not feeling trusted by Apple.
Because of this, it doesn’t matter how trustworthy the system is or what they do to make it less abusable. It will still represent distrust of the end user, and people will still feel that in their bones.
People argue about the App Store and not being trusted to install their own Apps etc. That isn’t the same. We all know we are fallible and a lot of people like the protection of the store, and having someone to ‘look after’ them.
This is different and deeper than that. Nobody want to be a suspect for something they know they aren’t doing. It feels dirty.
I don’t like the idea of stuff running on my device, consuming my battery and data, when the only point is to see if I am doing something wrong? An analogy I can come up with is: the government hires people to visit your house every day, and while they’re there they need your resources (say, food, water, and electricity). In other words, they use up some of the stuff you would otherwise be able to use only for yourse…
What’s not discussed in this Paper is how it won’t be used by third-party actors to falsely accuse someone. Does nobody remember the iCloud hack? What about instead of downloading Jennifer Lawrence’s photos, a hacker uploaded children to get someone falsely accused?
Google, Microsoft and a bunch of other services already scan for CSAM materials, yet this hasn’t been an issue so far. In fact I can’t really find a single case when someone was framed like this, despite how easy it is to fill someone’s account with CSAM and call the cops/wait. I don’t like the privacy and property rights issues of this but the whole someone will use this to frame someone is quite BS.
I would say that the opt-out preference on iPhones that by default uploads all photos to iCloud combined with a remote execution payload like Pegasus would render such an attack plausible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon?wprov=s...
I can believe that some people might be so technically illiterate that they'd upload CSAM to a private Facebook group thinking it was secure. But as far as I'm aware it's not possible to password protect photo albums using the built-in Photos app.
A key point that needs to be mentioned: we strongly dislike being distrusted. It might well be a genetic heritage. Being trusted in a tribe is crucial to survival, and so is likely wired deep into our social psychology. Apple is making a mistake by ignoring that. This isn’t about people not trusting Apple. It’s about people not feeling trusted by Apple. Because of this, it doesn’t matter how trustworthy the system is…