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

WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 372 posts

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#281

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

ratww wrote: post #270
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, time for American teens to switch to WhatsApp, Telegram or Signal. Kids have sex life finds a way. Has Apple thought this through?

Interesting observation. This might be more damaging to Apple than anything else. Without iMessage/Facetime, a large part of the peer pressure teens get for having an iPhone is gone. Now they might start asking for a Galaxy or something like that.

"The green bubbles are people who can sext, blue bubbles are spies for Apple"

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#282

Post by charcircuit »

nicce wrote: post #259
new299 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you rather they keep photos non-E2E forever and have even more unfettered access to them than a "backdoor" allows? It does NOT scan photos that are not uploaded to the cloud, despite being on-device. Yes I'd rather they do this. The fact that they're implementing on device checks doesn't suggest to me that they will be deploying E2E encryption. It suggests to me that they will be expanding on device scanning…

Their PR did not handle this well. If you look at the spec, new encryption level has been added, which allows access by Apple only if CSAM hash threshold is reached. It is E2EE with backdoor now.

It's not a backdoor if it's a public part of the system / protocol.

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#284

Post by bdibs »

PolCPP wrote: post #46
bdibs wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m considering a switch to GrapheneOS on a Pixel. I’m not sure if it’s an overreaction but I feel like I’ve lost what little trust I had remaining in Apple. It’s really unfortunate as they make quality products, but I guess everything sours eventually.

Why Graphene instead of Calyx? The later seems to be more user friendly (asking because i'm looking into it)

My (limited) understanding so far is that Calyx is a "looser" Graphene security wise to make it a bit more user friendly, I'm wanting to just jump in with both feet. I don't use a ton of apps anyways so I don't think I'll be missing anything.

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#285

Post by vorpalhex »

ashildr wrote: post #56

“other tech experts“ want to keep Apple from using End2End encryption so they have a reason why they don’t provide it to their customers. With Apple‘s approach Apple can only decrypt Data hosted with them if the (false) positives are over a threshold. It‘s a pretty neat way to implement a usecase so deeply wrong. All other companies protesting now want to keep access to userdata in the clear. Apple‘s approach is the…

Earn-IT is proposed legislation, not law. It has no power.

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#286

Post by vorpalhex »

1024core wrote: post #128

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everything starts off with "won't anyone think of the children?". Next thing you know, Apple is scanning your photos for faces of known "terrorists", etc. I have children, and hate CP with a passion, but know that this is not the answer.

Terrorists, illegal drug use, "dangerous" materials like pipes or fuses (god forbid if you like model rocketry). The list goes on.

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#287

Post by ursugardaddy »

f3d46600-b66e wrote: post #151
hughrr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s too late either way. The fact that it even got this far through implementation says the vendor is not on my side. Not only that once capability is revealed it can be required by governments and manipulated under warrant. Particularly in some regimes, mine included, the vendor can be compelled to do something and not say anything. My comment doesn’t even cover how monumentally flawed the entire thing is either. S…

How does Nokia 215 solve the problem? All messages, including any images, wi now go through the carrier's network (and the recipient's carrier) and be subject to intercept, analysis, and sale by those two entities. I'm not sure how is that better? Wouldn't AOSP/Lineage with Signal installed be better?

I don't know if the 215 supports tethering, but there are feature phones that do paired with a laptop or even something like a steam deck (running linux) is the way to go if you really need mobile internet

you get privacy and freedom from the smartphone-service-based-everything-forever lifesytle, it's nice

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#288

Post by studentrob »

altantiprocrast wrote: post #194
studentrob wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let's face it, if you wait for the politicos to come up with a solution and force it through with legislation, they really would put in actual backdoors and encryption bans given half the chance. They've tried to do this for decades and have failed. If they're going to do it then let it be on record. Let's see how voters like it.

90% of the voters are too stupid or probably don't even know what encryption is. Many are also going to stick to party lines. It just matters whether the 10% swing voters will care about this issue *more than* the other awful things the leadership is doing.

Plenty do know and care when news outlets' tech experts report on seemingly incomprehensible topics such as net neutrality or encryption. You can't white wash expert opinion. Again, the government has been asking for this for decades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#289

Post by nicce »

charcircuit wrote: post #282
nicce wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their PR did not handle this well. If you look at the spec, new encryption level has been added, which allows access by Apple only if CSAM hash threshold is reached. It is E2EE with backdoor now.

It's not a backdoor if it's a public part of the system / protocol.

Hmm... that is technically correct.

Re: WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple’s Child Safety plan

#290

Post by charcircuit »

bitcurious wrote: post #87
elzbardico wrote: post #57

This applies only to photos that are uploaded to iCloud. Apple is doing to do the processing on the device though, but only for the photos that are going to be uploaded to iCloud. Like other services do. WhatsApp is a Facebook property and decided to use this confusion to hit Apple politically with a low punch. People that should know better prove once again that most people read no much than the headlines and base t…

That’s like building a tank and saying it’ll only be used for deliveries. Once the infrastructure is in place on every device to detect arbitrary images/messages on the device the switch will be flipped.

The infrastructure for detecting files does not need to be that complex. We are talking something a single engineer can do in less than an hour.
Post reply on HN