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

441–450 of 451 posts

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

#441

Post by CSAECop »

noptd wrote: post #430
CSAECop wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, to clarify, you do in fact support Apple running the exact same scans on their server side CPUs? A situation that has the exact same effects on society...? Your only concern then, is with a future authoritarian policy of your own imagination?

>A situation that has the exact same effects on society...? Of all your (mis)leading questions, this one sticks out the most as being of particularly bad faith.

Can you explain why?

Commenters here are making claims about false positives, arrests of innocents, lived ruined etc. These effects are identical whether uploads are scanned before or after transmission.

What are the different effects of society from scanning the upload before transmission?

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

#442

Post by CSAECop »

feanaro wrote: post #437
CSAECop wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, to clarify, you do in fact support Apple running the exact same scans on their server side CPUs? A situation that has the exact same effects on society...? Your only concern then, is with a future authoritarian policy of your own imagination?

Yes, but > A situation that has the exact same effects on society...? This is patently false. You do come off as arguing in bad faith, resorting to debasing any concerns of policy misuse as simply a product of the imagination of the person raising the concern. As if authoritarian policies and erosion of freedom/privacy are something completely baseless, impossible and unheard of, instead of happening all the time .

It's still not clear to me whether you are raising an issue with scanning client side, or your concern is actually with some other policy you expect to be implemented in future.

What is the most obviously different effect on society? I don't know how anyone would even know what CPU calculated their file hash.

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

#443

Post by simondotau »

xvector wrote: post #427
simondotau wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when the Apple employee who reviews the flagged accounts sees pictures of Tank Man and not CSAM, they won't forward them on.

Unless their business is threatened

What was stopping Apple from being threatened with the exact same threats three years ago?

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

#444

Post by nix23 »

bborud wrote: post #436
nix23 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If they could just figure out how to deliver on it Install an antenna? You know that before 5G there was a 4,3,2,1,0.5 G?

Well, no. Most of the attraction of 5G isn't really anything you as a consumer will ever see. Like more advanced spectrum management and more advanced core network components that allow what you can think of as "virtualization with quality of service guarantees" for multiple tenants. On top of that 5G also makes use of higher frequency spectrum which has implications both for use and the design of mobile networks. To…

>Most of the attraction of 5G isn't really anything you as a consumer will ever see.

I see the speed difference definitely, that's was the point here remember?

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

#445

Post by jbuhbjlnjbn »

marcellus23 wrote: post #375
jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the scan remained in the cloud, it could not be misused to spy on anything else but the uploads. But if it runs on the device and sends findings, it fits the definition of spyware.

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

#446

Post by marcellus23 »

jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #445
marcellus23 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the scan remained in the cloud, it could not be misused to spy on anything else but the uploads. But if it runs on the device and sends findings, it fits the definition of spyware.

That argument just makes no sense. Apple already controls your device and software.

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

#447

Post by schappim »

Boycotting Apple products will not make a difference. Apple doesn't care, what Apple does care about is bad PR.

Generating and sharing bad PR is the only way to get Apple to change something.

Think about the Bad PR around Butterfly Keyboards, MacPro, App Store Policies etc and Apple reversing course on decisions.

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

#448

Post by swiley »

queuebert wrote: post #288
swiley wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completed my move to the Pinephone and formatted my iPhone over this. I'm probably not alone.

I would love to read some first-hand experiences of the Pinephone or Librem phones on here.

I've used one for a year now, it's a UMPC running Linux that can make phone calls. What do you want to know?

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

#449

Post by metta2uall »

travoc wrote: post #223
metta2uall wrote: post #219

I'm not sure what the solution is.. Child abuse is an extremely severe problem. In the future encrypted-messaging may be used by terrorists developing some weapon of mass destruction like a virus. I'm concerned about privacy, but is it tenable to have true E2EE regardless of the harm? For better or worse it seems that human societies will prioritise physical safety over most things. Even if we have true E2EE, a bad a…

The solution is for law enforcement to show evidence of a crime to get a subpoena. If you don’t think it works, check out your local list of Megan’s Law participants.

Unfortunately law enforcement don't have super-human powers and very often don't know who exactly is involved..

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

#450

Post by bborud »

nix23 wrote: post #444
bborud wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no. Most of the attraction of 5G isn't really anything you as a consumer will ever see. Like more advanced spectrum management and more advanced core network components that allow what you can think of as "virtualization with quality of service guarantees" for multiple tenants. On top of that 5G also makes use of higher frequency spectrum which has implications both for use and the design of mobile networks. To…

>Most of the attraction of 5G isn't really anything you as a consumer will ever see. I see the speed difference definitely, that's was the point here remember?

How long have you used 5G?
Post reply on HN