An open letter against Apple's new privacy-invasive client-side content scanning • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by hnlmorg » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

feanaro wrote: post #201

hnlmorg wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the problem with your response is that you aren't proposing anything better. That's because I honestly can't think of anything better. However that doesn't make my response invalid. > The majority just sits around waiting for something to happen and for some miracle to happen; for a leader to show up, galvanize the masses to change their ways and save the day. At the same time you don't believe that will ev…

I think your proclamation of it all being futile is a bit premature and can be disheartening for those that do want to act. It may even play a part in negative change, leading to some people dropping their original intention because you successfully convinced them that nothing can possibly change. Yet, I'm not convinced that you can reasonably know this. So if we can all agree that what's happening here with Apple is…

The irony here is while arguing that we should fight for our freedoms you are suggesting I shouldn't exercise one of my freedoms.

I do get your point, honestly I do, but you can't have it both ways.

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

#372

Post by hnlmorg » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

mdale wrote: post #354

hnlmorg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good that you're principled enough to do that but you guys will be rounding errors in Apple's revenue. Most people don't even know about this and those that do, most wont care. Even of those who do know and do care, most aren't motivated enough to change their habits beyond writing a few angry words on a forum Apple are never going to read anyway. Those that do change their buying habits, yourselves, are by far…

The best you can do is raise tech awareness, take apple interviews and cite this reason for not moving forward. Facebook faced constraint not just after a avalanche of bad press but also as the tech workers (employees and applicants) pushed back and worked to improve things. The biggest asset in information economy is the people; the employees can enact change. See many examples in how Google direction has been influ…

Facebook hasn't changed -- if anything, they're bigger now and sucking up more personal data than ever. Your Google example is an interesting one though it's worth noting it was the employees who objected. However it's not inconceivable that a public outcry could cause Apple employees to rethink and then challenge their management's decision.

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

#373

Post by benhurmarcel » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

fouc wrote: post #61

polack wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like Syncthing doesn’t have support/client for iOS though?

There may be 3rd party apps like https://www.mobiussync.com

For some reason it’s not available in France. Is it limited to the US?

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

#374

Post by seanp2k2 » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

fragileone wrote: post #291

mrweasel wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Vote with your feet - Put your money in the pockets of the people aligned to your values. The sad reality right now is that we're actively suggesting that peoples stop buying smart phones, and I think that would mean that any argument will fall on deaf ears. Yes, projects like the PinePhone exists, but they aren't ready for the general public. As much as I agree with your comment, the sad reality is that I have…

That's not the only choice at all. Pixel phones + GrapheneOS/CalyxOS. Various phones + LineageOS. Various devices + SailfishOS. Librem 5. PinePhone. Fairphone. /e/. F(x)Tec Pro1. You're greatly underestimating the ability of people to adapt when suggiciently motivated, especially when so many devices can be bought fully set up and most people use only a few apps anyway.

There are lots of DIY electric car kits out there too, but suggesting one as a viable alternative daily driver to mass-market consumers seems a bit unrealistic.

Apple was nice in theory because it provided out-of-the-box privacy and security that laypeople could just go buy.

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

#375

Post by marcellus23 » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #345

marcellus23 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it’s still only cloud photos being scanned. The only photos on your device being scanned are ones that are being uploaded to the cloud. So again, what’s the practical difference?

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

#376

Post by bradlys » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #292

pydry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One thought: is it because over 10, 20, 30+ years the police have been de-funded everywhere Police funding has shot up in America. It's everything else thats been cut. >what’s the problem. There's no problem. It's just a drawn out power grab with a weak pretext.

>There's no problem. It's just a drawn out power grab with a weak pretext. In 2018 tech companies reported over 45 million images of CSAM, which was double the amount that was reported the year before.[0] The next year the number of reports went up to 60 million.[1] I wouldn't expect everyone to agree on the proper response to the rapid growth of child-abuse imagery online, but I don't think the problem itself should…

I couldn't find anywhere in the NY article that described that these efforts these companies are doing is leading to less child porn being created. Is that true? Everything I read and searched for wanted to make it sound like child porn and sexual abuse of children was skyrocketing - nothing concrete about the number of victims per capita per year in the USA or what not. And - of course - it made it sound like this effort is deeply underfunded and needs tons more money behind it because it's exploding as an issue and your next door neighbor is clearly raping children... It felt a bit sensationalist.

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

#377

Post by skinkestek » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

CSAECop wrote: post #332

feanaro wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a reality you have to accept. It is a simple matter to get away with owning this kind of material, dragnet method or not. There is no point in trying to eradicate all such material and bring the number to absolute zero. It's impossible. The only way to semi-ensure this would be absolute slavery of the citizenry, which I hope is a non-goal.

Nobody is proposing that though... It's a fact that NCMEC referrals have identified teachers who were secretly pedophiles, who were subsequently banned from teaching. Most people see this as a good thing. If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument. I support everybody's right to argue for the type of society they want to see, but there's an arrogance/conspiratorial flavor to a lot of th…

> If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument.

I'm a law-and-order guy myself, have applied for (technical) position in police and would even accept a paycut for it.

But it is with this like with other security related things, many people only considers two of the three cornerstones:

- confidentiality

- integrity

- availability

Same here:

Justice is not only about punishing every very bad guy.

It is also very much about not dragging innocent people through the worst accusations an innocent person can be dragged through.

Keeping people safe is not only about rescuing people from hostage situations - it is also about not ramming in the door at someone relaxing on their couch because some random guy or gal called over ip phone.

Too many people already go through huge problems because of false accusations. You say you work in the field so I guess you must have heard about cases were perfectly innocent people commit suicide because their lives got ruined because of what later turned out to be baseless accusations.

Justice is also about not creating a system that creates even more of this suffering, right?

(BTW: I really enjoyed the an0m trick and a few others. I root for you guys, but lets keep it real and not set up the worst footgun for the future since the well meant Jew lists in Europe early last century.)

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

#378

Post by nullc » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #318

nullc wrote: post #187

Somewhat offtopic, but the subject caused me to make a disappointing realization: The most sure way for someone to obtain child porn images that won't trigger a hit in these known child-abuse-image databases would be for someone to take new photos. Is there a reason we can be confident that these databases aren't creating a market for novel child abuse at a greater rate than they're taking abusers out of the communit…

The target of NCMEC's database is stopping the distribution, and hopefully encouragement of CSAM. Besides how the distribution can negatively impact the mental state of victims, distribution and more eyes on it might cause more people already on barely-legal parts of the internet (ie. qanon message boards) to learn about ways to obtain CSAM and become part of the market of buyers for such material. If you stop that,…

> The target of NCMEC's database is stopping the distribution, and hopefully encouragement of CSAM.

But potentially with the unintended consequence of encouraging the creation of more child abuse material, in order to evade the detection of recognized images.

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

#379

Post by stjohnswarts » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #292

pydry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One thought: is it because over 10, 20, 30+ years the police have been de-funded everywhere Police funding has shot up in America. It's everything else thats been cut. >what’s the problem. There's no problem. It's just a drawn out power grab with a weak pretext.

>There's no problem. It's just a drawn out power grab with a weak pretext. In 2018 tech companies reported over 45 million images of CSAM, which was double the amount that was reported the year before.[0] The next year the number of reports went up to 60 million.[1] I wouldn't expect everyone to agree on the proper response to the rapid growth of child-abuse imagery online, but I don't think the problem itself should…

There is literally no logic to what they are doing. the CP criminals will just work around it and the other billion or so of us are stuck with Apple acting like they're the police, and waiting for the government to send them the next "CSAM" database of political dissent hashes or pretty soon just scanning for anything that governments don't like on the device that YOU OWN. This is a joke, a very dangerous one. This will do nothing but put a slight dent in CP arrests and another huge body blow to democracy.

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

#380

Post by stjohnswarts » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

lyaa wrote: post #165

ssss11 wrote: post #50

Related but slightly off-topic: am I the only one that thinks more technology is not the answer to catching crooks? Can’t the police do good old fashioned police work to catch people doing these things? Why does EVERYONE need to be surveilled for the 0.01% (or less?) who don’t behave properly. To further this point: why do we need cameras on every street, facial recognition systems and 3-letter orgs storing huge data…

American police has never been de-funded, and if you really think "good old fashioned" police work ever actually worked for most people, you are misinformed. Without even discussing policing across racial and poverty lines, one only needs to look at police failing to catch serial killers, rapists, and even just house burglars. The situation was much worst 10, 20, 30+ years ago. Nowadays police have some of their work…

I don't think us have thought criminal scanning on our devices is going to fix any of that. Cops don't need to be in my phone unless they have reason to suspect me and have a warrant to search it. Otherwise this is just a corporate proxy for the cops in warrant-less searches of what we're doing day to day on our own devices.