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

Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

blog.ericgoldman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 597 posts

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#341

Post by plagiarist »

phoghed wrote: post #333
derektank wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution and the constitution requires an extreme super majority to update. A 50%+1 majority is all that’s required to ban civilian ownership of guns in most parliamen…

Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.

Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#342

Post by wredcoll »

guerrilla wrote: post #242
giantg2 wrote: post #198

Maybe my perception is off, but it seems like there's a huge push by the legislature and some people to do anything and everything to prevent CSAM, yet almost nothing seems to be done to prevent CSA. For CSAM, there's all sorts of monitoring, scanning, identify capturing, etc. But it's all after abuse has taken place, and it seems that many of the people actually arrested are arrested for CSAM and not CSA. This has e…

In Sweden we're going to literally have Minority Report style pre-crime registries for potential child molesters. We already have one for potential domestic abusers. Fuck this country. I need to get out of here before it gets worse.

What? Since when? What are you talking about?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#343

Post by duskwuff »

tzs wrote: post #271
Zak wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were two different technologies. One was client-side scanning for known CSAM, which created a huge backlash and is described here: https://educatedguesswork.org/posts/apple-csam-intro/ The other is detection of images that may contain nudity, whether sent or received, when the owner/admin/parent enables the feature. It is relatively uncontroversial and is described here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/105069

> The other is detection of images that may contain nudity, whether sent or received, when the owner/admin/parent enables the feature. It is relatively uncontroversial [...] That's a new version. The one that as announced the same time as client side scanning to block uploading CSAM to iCloud worked like this. 1. It could be enabled on a child's device by the parents. It was not on be default. 2. If the child receive…

One of the more recent changes is that anyone can now enable a version of this functionality, even if they aren't set up with a child account. (It's under Settings > Messages > Sensitive Content Warning.) In this mode, it behaves similarly to the over-13 mode described above; no one is notified, whether the user chooses to view the image or not.

This mode is probably best understood as "if someone texts me a dick pic, please blur it". I don't think there's any reasonable objection to this.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#344

Post by rationalist »

phoghed wrote: post #336
rationalist wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard anyone say that a rate is ambiguous. It seems like you're trying to be disingenuous, first with "rate", now with my clearly-arbitrary example of rate. > something like

No, it seems more like you are being disingenuous. All you have to do is drop a link to the rates you’re referring to. Instead you’re just arguing semantics. Where’s the receipts?

> something like

I thought adding "for example" at the end was just unnecessary redundancy, but I guess I was wrong.

I still don't understand why the other person is trying to cross-examine me on the definition of "rate" or whatever though. That is the person arguing semantics, not me... (Same with you, except you're going one step further and trying to gaslight me.)

I'm curious, do you have something against churches and/or Scouts?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#345

Post by dijit »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #334
basilikum wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally know of 1 who took a leak across from a playground at 2am walking home from the bars and was put on the sex offender registry because it was within 500'. You might want to look up if that's actually true. It might be. It might also be a lie to hide the real reason why they are registered.

What’s up with the cop that cited them for that?

in my limited experience with the law, they tend to really go for you if you aren't the kind of person who enjoys breaking the law.

It's almost like they can spot an easy target.

Deal drugs and conduct yourself violently in society, sit with a gang and destroy property... Police seem to have a hard time with you.

Push someone over who is threatening to knock your teeth out when you're walking with your wife and kids... that's an assault charge, because naively you explained what happened to the police, and they're going to make sure you see the inside of a court room for it.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#346

Post by BloodyIron »

dijit wrote: post #345
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s up with the cop that cited them for that?

in my limited experience with the law, they tend to really go for you if you aren't the kind of person who enjoys breaking the law. It's almost like they can spot an easy target. Deal drugs and conduct yourself violently in society, sit with a gang and destroy property... Police seem to have a hard time with you. Push someone over who is threatening to knock your teeth out when you're walking with your wife and kids.…

Quotas?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#347

Post by MBCook »

throwaway17824 wrote: post #309
nativeit wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did we aggressively legislate against, search for, monitor, investigate, and prosecute owning firearms?

I'm taking a guess at what the OP meant, but people focus on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Supposedly most incidents and deaths are caused by handguns. They're more affordable, and easy to discretely keep on your person. A data-driven policy would focus on them first, but it's easier to rile up the public about AR-15s so we keep doing the less-effective thing.

Things that feel useful instead of are useful.

We're not allowed to use data or experts. They’re untrustworthy and out to trick us.

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#348

Post by matheusmoreira »

giantg2 wrote: post #198

Maybe my perception is off, but it seems like there's a huge push by the legislature and some people to do anything and everything to prevent CSAM, yet almost nothing seems to be done to prevent CSA. For CSAM, there's all sorts of monitoring, scanning, identify capturing, etc. But it's all after abuse has taken place, and it seems that many of the people actually arrested are arrested for CSAM and not CSA. This has e…

It's not about children. It was never about children. How many politicians have gotten caught in Epstein's island by now?

It's all about surveilling the masses and keeping them under control. Children are merely one of the political weapons they use to make the masses accept any proposed solution, no matter how Orwellian. You're not against protecting children from drug trafficking, money laundering, child molesting terrorists, are you?

Re: Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

#350

Post by fwip »

Zak wrote: post #293
tzs wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other is detection of images that may contain nudity, whether sent or received, when the owner/admin/parent enables the feature. It is relatively uncontroversial [...] That's a new version. The one that as announced the same time as client side scanning to block uploading CSAM to iCloud worked like this. 1. It could be enabled on a child's device by the parents. It was not on be default. 2. If the child receive…

I have a hard time imagining any significant number of people objecting based on the sender's privacy. An adult sending explicit images to a child is a crime in most jurisdictions. A child doing it with a recipient under 13 is a concerning behavior the parents need to address. Notifying the parents even requires that the child acknowledge that's what's going to happen.

Presumably they were worried about misclassified images, or images sent by other kids.
Post reply on HN