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

191–200 of 860 posts

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

#191

Post by stjohnswarts »

pehtis wrote: post #95
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…

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?

Yes it will come with the next "+1" version due out in late fall (winter?). It will be an integral to the icloud photos platform. Supposedly if you turn off iCloud photos backup it gets turned off as well

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

#193

Post by ursugardaddy »

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…

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some weird telemetry tied to this too

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

#194

Post by breck »

travoc wrote: post #7

Can someone explain how Apple being coaxed or coerced into searching all of our personal devices for illegal files by federal law enforcement is not an unconstitutional warrantless search?

My money is this is secretly about nuclear, bio, chemical or other WMD or “dangerous” material. I can’t imagine that Apple would be so stupid to open such a Pandora’s box to an Orwellian state and crimes against all children in the name of making no statistical difference in the porn problem. There has got to be a hidden story here and severe pressure on top executives, otherwise I can’t see how the math makes sense. Please keep digging, journalists!

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

#196

Post by naeeqn »

akiselev wrote: post #158

> It's a complete change of narrative and there's no easy way to explain it and still defend Apple's Privacy narrative, wihout doing extreme mental gymnastics. Everyone who took Apple at their word was already doing extreme mental gymnastics because Apple's privacy stance was a farce on borrowed time to begin with. Now it's just blatantly obvious to everyone.

I agree. I wanted to believe that despite being a greedy coropration - like they are all - and despite the hidden compromises in security they do (like not encrypting backups because the FBI asked them to) they would at least try their best to avoid being scumbags.

Too bad. Scumbags they are.

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

#197

Post by stjohnswarts »

selsta wrote: post #151
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. I recently invested $3800 in an excellent, new iMac. Now I'm starting to wonder if I should have spent a couple thousand less for a barebones PC and installed my favorite Linux distro. It would have done 75% of what I needed, and the other 25% (music and video work)... well, that's the tradeoff. If anyone in my circle of family, friends, and social network asks my advice, the formerly easy answer "Get a Mac, g…

The CSAM detection technical summary [1] only mentions iOS and iPadOS. If it does come to macOS it will be part of Photos.app, as that's the only way to interact with iCloud Photos. I would recommend you to avoid that app and cloud in general if you care about privacy. [1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...

That's not what I read in multiple sources. They including mac os as part of it. And why wouldn't they the software will be easy to compile into the apple photos app. https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-child-abuse-material-sca...

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

#198

Post by zepto »

jmull wrote: post #167

I just do not want Apple scanning my phone for the purpose of finding something they can send to the police. I’m not even talking about any “slippery slope” scenarios and I’ll never have any of the material they are looking for. And right or wrong, I don’t really fear a false identification, so this isn’t about a worry that they will actually turn me in. I just don’t want them scanning my phone for the purpose of tur…

This is the most honest take on this that I’ve seen. The slippery slope arguments don’t make sense, nor does the risk of false positives.

But the idea of being suspected even in this abstract way, because of something other people do, is at the very least distasteful, bordering on offensive.

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

#199

Post by [deleted] »

least wrote: post #131
totetsu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with a debian package you can choose not to accept the upgrade and see any funny business in the release source code..

That is technically true but in a real very practical sense everyone here using OSS absolutely is trusting a third party because they are not auditing every bit of code they run. For less technical people there is effectively zero difference between open and closed software. It’s really disingenuous to suggest that open source isn’t dependent on trust, you just change who you are trusting. Even if the case is someone…

[deleted]

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

#200

Post by stjohnswarts »

skybrian wrote: post #103
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…

They didn’t do themselves any favors by blurring the line between apps and the OS. If it’s just Apple’s Photos app doing this, you can install a different app and not use that one.

That's true for now but once it gets normalized it will be extended laterally across the whole phone.
Post reply on HN