Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

251–260 of 860 posts

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

#251

> 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.

It’s only a “farce on borrowed time” because you have the benefit of hindsight.

I think you'll find that a few of us, above poster included, have been saying all along it's a farce - that their stances have been missing the point for a long time. In that case, it's called foresight. Sometimes just luck, but repeated lucky guesses are indistinguishable from predictive power.

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

#252

Personally I don't see on device scanning as significantly different than cloud scanning. I think the widespread acceptance of scanning personal data stored on the cloud is a serious mistake. Cloud storage services are acting as agents of the user and so should not be doing any scanning or interpreting of data not explicitly for providing the service to the end user. Scanning/interpreting should only happen when data…

Would you like to have a landlord coming to your flat as they please to look for drugs? It's the same thing. They make you a suspect by default.

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

#253
I stopped my Apple Music subscription and downgraded iCloud to free, then donated a year of those fees to the EFF.

$13/month is nothing to Apple, and I really regret it since photos in iCloud is really convenient, however it feels unethical to contribute to the Apple services system when it will inevitably be used to hurt people like dissidents and whistle blowers.

It is arrogant to blow off security and human rights experts outside of Apple as simply confused or mistaken, when there are sufficiently informed and imaginative people within Apple to understand the practical implications of preemptively investigating users. Such contempt for users is also a sign of worrisome complacency.

On the plus side, Apple has seemed to crowd out interest in third party OS user interfaces. Knowing that Apple believes you're a pedophile until they've run image analysis software on your stuff is one way to motivate people. Maybe 2021 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.

Anyway I hope that more users sacrifice the convenience of Apple services now that its hostility is apparent, and I hope that more people tell their political representatives that it is time for meaningful updates to anti-trust legislation. I know that I was complacent when I thought that having a choice, where at least one of the companies didn't place ads in the start menu, was a tenable state of the market.

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

#254
post #88
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?

They aren't being coaxed or coerced. If they were forced-- or even incentivized-- by the government to perform these searches than they'd be subject to the fourth amendment protecting against warrantless searches. Apple is engaging in this activity of their own free will for sake of their own commercial gain and are not being incentivized or coerced by the government in any way. As such, the warrantless search of the…

> Apple is engaging in this activity of their own free will for sake of their own commercial gain and are not being incentivized or coerced by the government in any way.

Honest question: how do you know this, for sure? Or is your comment supposed to be read as an allegation phrased as fact?

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

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think something else happened, and to be honest I think many at Apple behind this decision are likely pretty surprised by the blowback. That is, it seems like Apple really wanted to preserve "end-to-end" encryption, but they needed to do something to address the CSAM issue lest governments come down on them hard. Thus, my guess is, at least at the beginning, they saw this as a strong win for privacy. As th…

That is, it seems like Apple really wanted to preserve "end-to-end" encryption,“ … except they still have not mentioned anything about E2E encryption… and they currently don’t encrypt icloud backups. You would think apple would get ahead of this story and mention … or maybe they don’t have any E2E plans at all.

This blog post got a lot of commentary on HN a couple days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28118350.

iMessages are already E2E encrypted, but you are correct, iCloud backups are decryptable with a warrant (and that was reportedly added at the FBI's request). But I agree with Ben Thompson's point in that blog post, that it's OK to not have strong, unbreakable encryption be the default, and that it's still possible to use an iPhone without iCloud and get full E2E.

But with Apple's CSAM proposal is NOT possible to have an iPhone that Apple isn't continuously scanning.

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

#256

I’m more mad that they made a tool that will clearly be abused by totalitarian governments that need to squash protests in HK for example.

Certainly this can be used just as easily to analyze documents on the phone for antigovernment sentiment and I think Apple will use it for that eventually because "the Chinese government demanded it"

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

#257
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…

I like this take. It shortcuts around all the "but people misunderstand the technology" back and forth and gets to the root of it. "Don't scan my phone for stuff you can send to the police."

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Everyone who ever joins the military

That's not a waiver, that's a space warrantless searches are reasonable under the fourth amendment and Congress’ Art. I, Sec. 8 powers with regard to the military, etc. Otherwise, when we had conscription, conscripts, who do not freely consent, would have been immune.

Post reply on HN