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

241–250 of 557 posts

Re: One Bad Apple

#241

Post by upbeat_general »

jodrellblank wrote: post #198
headShrinker wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s all an invasion of privacy until you’re sitting on the other side of the table where you have a vested interest in getting access to the information. That’s the thing about privacy that so many don’t want to admit. “Everyone deserves it, until they don’t”. All of society’s privacy is more important than your single child, sorry. Meanwhile I created this great new technology. It runs in the background super eff…

> " All of society’s privacy is more important than your single child, sorry. " " which might include audio of you making love to your wife. " You and your wife bumping uglies just isn't that special, your embarassment about it is way out of proportion to the amount necessary. The fact that you would rather people die in house fires than a small chance that a stranger hears you breathing heavily and talking dirty sho…

Just to be clear, you're saying that it's unreasonable to prefer everyone having private bedroom conversations over the elimination of spontaneous house fires?

That it's worth having a random human being able to listen to all said conversations?

To me at least it's incredibly reasonable to make that tradeoff. As a society we make tradeoffs all the time and people die as a result. Some of those tradeoffs are arguably unreasonable but this hypothetical seems very clear...

Re: One Bad Apple

#242

Post by kfprt »

cromwellian wrote: post #88

I don't see many people pushing back on the child pornography laws themselves that are the cause of this. I'm stepping into a hornets nest by even bringing this up, because any criticism of the laws on the books makes one look they're a pedo, so I'll preface by saying, child pornography (filmed with actual kids) is vile and disgusting, but it is the production of it that is evil to be fought and suppressed, not the p…

The police already have an incentive to not investigate rape because it makes their numbers look bad which affects funding. Now extend that to children who can't file a police report and you can get an idea of how little the 'think of the children' crowd actually cares about stopping CSA. Pure hypocrisy. They expect us to surrender our fundamental rights while they look the other way (Sophie Long)on CSA.

Re: One Bad Apple

#243

Post by kfprt »

sooheon wrote: post #110
baggy_trough wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The issue is that the iPhone is now a snitch AI for whatever purpose Apple deems fit.

Drug dogs have a 50~80% false positive rate, because after they've been certified as capable of detecting drugs, they get that trained out of them the field to instead indicate whatever the handler wants indicated.

Drug dogs are "probable cause on four legs".

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-b...

Re: One Bad Apple

#244

Post by upbeat_general »

a-dub wrote: post #221

so maybe i'm confused, but i thought it worked like this: pre this thing: * before syncing photos to icloud, the device encrypts them with a device local key, so they sit on apple's servers encrypted at rest and apple cannot look at them unless they push an update to your device that sends them your key or uploads your photos unencrypted somewhere else after this thing: * before syncing photos to icloud, the device e…

They do not provide e2e for iCloud photos (or iCloud backups, etc.) and did not specify that they were planning to.

They do not provide more privacy than the competition (in this regard at least), and yes, people can just disable iCloud services. That argument that "you can just not use it" is a pretty weak one for defending poor privacy practices. The same could be said for any website or server with poor privacy practices and given the prevalence of iCloud photos, this change affects lots of people.

Re: One Bad Apple

#245

Post by brandon272 »

iJohnDoe wrote: post #91

I haven’t read all the details, articles, and comments. My personal thoughts on the whole situation are the following. If you are a parent and lose a child then you would want every possible avenue taken to find your child. You would be going mad wanting to find them. If there is a way to match photos to known missing children then I say it should be at least tried. I equate this to Ring cameras. They are everywhere.…

If I were a parent and my child went missing, something much higher on my priority list than matching photos in some national database would be having the police search every home in a 2 mile radius of my home.

It seems just as rational to argue that the people who live in those homes should be willing to give up their right to not have their home searched if it means potentially finding a missing child in a potential criminal's home.

We can come up with all kinds of hypothetical situations. I am empathetic to parents going through the hell of a missing child, and to the children themselves. But the protection of children and victims must be balanced with the preservation of rights and freedoms considered deeply sacrosanct.

Re: One Bad Apple

#246

Post by andrewflnr »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #240
andrewflnr wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a PR fight you will lose.

I'm not so sure, I think it may be a lose-lose scenario, with both the government and the companies who's products have become compromised taking a big hit. The people merely avoiding the tainted products aren't on blast here.

The people on blast are the ones publicly advocating for privacy. They're the ones who would be damaged in that scenario, and I for one want a society that takes them seriously.

Re: One Bad Apple

#247

Post by kfprt »

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?

Gary Plauche

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauch%C3%A9

Re: One Bad Apple

#248

Post by UnpossibleJim »

slg wrote: post #188
kbenson wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past these people would have been developing the pictures themselves, and handing them between each other either personally or in some hidden manner using public systems. Not only has communication become easier, so has surveillance. The only difference now is that it's easier for people not to be aware when their very personal privacy is invaded, and that it can be done to the whole populace at once.

>Not only has communication become easier, so has surveillance. It is a devil's advocate response, but can you explain why this is a bad thing? If communication is scaling and becoming easier, why shouldn't surveillance?

Surveillance does have its place, but a large part of the problem with the new technology of surveillance is the people passing the laws on surveillance don't understand the technology that surrounds it.

Take, for instance, the collection of metadata that is now so freely swept up by the American government without a warrant. This includes the people involved in communication, the method of communication, time and duration of communication and locations of those involved with said communication. All of that is involved in the metadata that can be collected without a warrant by national agencies for "national security" done on a massive scale under PRISM (PRIZM?).

Now, this is non targeted, national surveillance, fishing for a "bad guy" with enhanced surveillance capabilities. This doesn't necessarily seem like a good thing. It seems like a lazy thing, and a thing which was ruled constitutional by people who chose to not understand the technology because it was easier than thinking down stream at the implications.

Re: One Bad Apple

#249

Post by robnewman7900 »

robertoandred wrote: post #222
robnewman7900 wrote: post #129

Wow, 20% of images being misclassified as CP would be terrifying. I never thought I'd say it but my next phone will definitely not be an iPhone or any device that is uploading my information to another server without my permission for any reason. Is there even any evidence that arresting people with the wrong bit pattern on the computer helps stop child rape/trafficking? If so, why aren't we also going after people w…

You did agree to upload your information to another server when you turned on iCloud Photo Library.

I don't have iCloud Photo Library

Re: One Bad Apple

#250

Post by cratermoon »

NonContro wrote: post #68
cratermoon wrote: post #23

Question: who is or will be making money on this deal? Answer that ("follow the money") and then I think we'll have a handle on what's really going on.

Apple gets to maintain its 30% commission and monopoly abuse of the app store (which is becoming the de-facto place where all consumer software downloads and payments occur), in return for feeding the iCloud data of all users worldwide to US intelligence agencies. Presumably the quid pro quo outcome is that Apple is allowed to win the Epic vs Apple lawsuit.

Ah! This and the other comment suggest a method: Apple implements something for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" in exchange for government calling off the regulation dogs. Cynical.
Post reply on HN