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

An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 451 posts

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#341

Post by brigandish »

arvinsim wrote: post #266
brigandish wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am currently planning the migration away from the Apple ecosystem Me too. I told my wife today that I'll be looking at a feature phone as I'm not sure I can be bothered with jumping through all the hoops required to de-Google an Android phone. I remember a time before mobile phones, I was just fine without one - smartphones aren't that good, just convenient.

The thing is, people who are young enough to not live in the time without mobile phones will have no recourse.

Quite possibly true. You reminded me of this, which did give me a chuckle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=updE5LVe6tg

Watching it again I wondered, would they even know what a dial tone is? (or was:)

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#342

Post by mirkules »

roenxi wrote: post #128
sillysaurusx wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a non-insignificant amount of people in tech take this seriously We're all here to make ourselves feel good saying we Took A Stand. In reality, four weeks from now, do you think anybody will still be talking about it? I made this same mistake. I was pretty convinced that people were taking Copilot seriously, and that there was possibly going to be ramifications for Microsoft. I wasn't particularly looking forward t…

> Like it or not, we aren't in control. The typical Apple customer is forking over thousands of dollars. They have substantial control. This isn't like a government where you need a plurality of voters to agree before anything starts to happen. Apple is running software on their phone that will either (a) do nothing or (b) call the police on them. The situation is questionable even for a normal consumer, let alone a…

My question is, who has funded this feature all the way from PoC to product? How did Apple calculate the ROI on this feature?

It’s not like end users are tripping over themselves to have all their photos scanned. Does Apple just have gobs of money to burn on things like this that will not increase its bottom line by even one penny?

There is probably funded from somewhere, and I’d like to know who is paying for it.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#343

Post by theptip »

nix23 wrote: post #331
bborud wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you? How often do you come into contact with the OS when developing for a phone, let alone use a phone? Phones are products for people who use them. What sells phones is not what OS is underneath layers and layers of code, but user experience. If we are to even hope for alternatives, this is where the focus needs to be. If the OS underneath mattered the Nokia Communicator would have been a runaway success. It w…

>How often do you come into contact with the OS when developing for a phone, let alone use a phone That's exactly the point, Maybe you don't know what Plan9 is, but see it like that: The Phone is just a Terminal. If i want todo business i connect my terminal to my Workplace-servers, every application, datas and settings are there, the calculation heavy stuff and backup is made on the server. If finished i connect to…

Slightly problematic when your phone loses service, but I get where you are coming from. It would be nice for that to be viable, we’re probably decades away from having good enough network connectivity.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#344

Post by Jolter »

meowster wrote: post #319
Klonoar wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's stopping them already...? It operates on iCloud photos. Those are already scanned. If a nation state wanted to flex this before they could have done so.

That's a poor argument, and possibly some kind of fallacy. 'No one has done it before, so they probably won't do it in the future now that it we made it easier.'

It’s not easier though. They moved the scanning onto the device instead of doing it server side. That all.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#345

Post by jbuhbjlnjbn »

marcellus23 wrote: post #235
thinkingemote wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being done on the local device, not just the cloud.

Why does it matter where the scanning is done, if the scans are done to the same content under the same circumstances?

iphone user != icloud user

When you use a cloud service, you must (should) be aware of the consequence of your files being stored on another computer on the internet.

Until now, your local files on your device were not scanned in an inscrutable manner.

This is a precedent.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#346

Post by kps »

simonh wrote: post #254
ajconway wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the main issue is that every time a technology or regulation that starts like that (“you don’t need to worry if you’re not doing anything wrong”) is then inevitably expanded into repressive activities by governments around the world.

Oh absolutely, the laws that started all of this are terribly thought through, all a child pornographer has to do to avoid these controls is not use iCloud Photo Library. That's it, just do that and they can have as much child porn on their phones as they like, and share it however they like using iMessage or anything else.

> all a child pornographer has to do to avoid these controls is not use iCloud Photo Library

Yes, so as it is today, this system isn't even useful for its stated purpose. Apple are not so stupid that they don't know that. Either it will not always be as it is today, or the stated original purpose isn't the ultimate purpose.

After all, the problem you state has a simple and obvious solution: just scan everything on the device.

The only saving grace is that a full database of copyright material won't fit on a current device, so as long as you avoid offending people in power in your jurisdiction you're probably fine for a few years.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#347

Post by rjzzleep »

saynay wrote: post #276
rjzzleep wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about defamation. I can understand why you would infer that. The fine I'm talking about is about "feeling insulted". There doesn't even have to be a third person present. Say someone treats you in a racist way, you call him Nazi, judge can order you to pay 400 Euros(or more depending how damaging he thinks you may have been to his feelings) for hurting his feelings. No need to have a witness prove it…

Do you have any proof of that actually happening? Genuine question, because fining someone over pure hearsay seems insane.

I was assaulted once and said this can only happen in a fascist country. The assaulter filed a complained saying I called him Nazi and I was fined for doing so, despite the fact that I never used those words. The law literally talks about this as something "hurting your honour". This law is ridiculous in its own right. It's not really related to the word Nazi at all. Which is why I called it a fun fact. It doesn't matter that I didn't say it. What matters is that the judge thought that I could have said it.

Attached is a case where someone appealed a judgement at the constitutional court of Germany because he was fined for calling a social worker in a correctional facility a "Trulla"[0]. Think of it as getting fined by the court for contempt by calling a random person a "Karen" in the US. He did say it, but it hardly constitutes an insult to someones honour. The courtcase argued that the way this law is currently used directly contradicts the rights of freedom of speech. Obviously they lost because it would set a precedent rendering this whole charade meaningless.

The way this law works is that it's undefined enough that what constitutes an insult to your honour and can therefore be used whenever someone threatens authority or if authority doesn't like you, you can be fined.

[0] https://www.kostenlose-urteile.de/BVerfG_1-BvR-224919_Erfolg...

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#348

Post by kktkti9 »

bArray wrote: post #41

Honestly I'm glad to see a non-insignificant amount of people in tech take this seriously, especially when the goal Apple announces appears to be for the greater good. It can be hard to stand on the side that doesn't immediately appear to be correct. We have already lost so many freedoms for 'national security' and other such blanket terminology. Just be warned, there will be those that unfairly try to cast this as h…

Apple has a right to protect themselves from being an accomplice to distribution of child porn.

Maybe you freedom fighters should have heeded the warnings over the decades of creeping corporate control and stopped buying their products?

Oooh but that dopamine high from new stuff is so addictive!

Now you’re finding yourself in an overturned boat, adrift at sea, no life jacket, and you’re ready to take on monopoly?

The anti-politics bloc incensed their political hands off approach enabled others to wield politics against them.

Good luck.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#349

Post by colejohnson66 »

jtbayly wrote: post #265
brigandish wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am currently planning the migration away from the Apple ecosystem Me too. I told my wife today that I'll be looking at a feature phone as I'm not sure I can be bothered with jumping through all the hoops required to de-Google an Android phone. I remember a time before mobile phones, I was just fine without one - smartphones aren't that good, just convenient.

I suspect it might be more effective to go to an Apple store and attempt to return your iphone and iPad (though probably they are outside of return windows.) I’m seriously considering doing that. Make it painful for the local staff by demanding a refund. Don’t take no for an answer for quite some time. Explain that they just broke the product with a remote update that you had no choice in, so thats why you’re only re…

> Explain that they just broke the product with a remote update that you had no choice in...

Except when you turned on the phone, you agreed to automatic updates. Contract law isn't on your side.

Re: An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning

#350

Post by polishdude20 »

sschueller wrote: post #16
foxpurple wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What cloud service are you putting your images on? I would be shocked if google photos hasn’t already been doing this.

Cloud services doing this isn't the problem and they are already doing it. The problem is your device doing this. Imagine if your Tesla reported back to Tesla who was in your car and sent that to the authorities if they thought someone in your car was "illegal".

Actually Tesla's do client side machine learning. When tesla needs training data of a bike for example, they can remotely "query" all the cars on the road and have the cars do client side detection of the stored footage and driving data and send over only the data that contains bikes.
Post reply on HN