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

One Bad Apple

hackerfactor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 557 posts

Re: One Bad Apple

#481

Post by raxxorrax »

nyx-aiur wrote: post #460
matheusmoreira wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't know if anything is or will be abused Actually I do. Governments abuse their powers all the time. They have done it before, are doing it right now and will continue to do it in the future. This is not fallacy, it is fact. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT The only solution is to take their power away. No way to abuse power they don't have. We must make it technologically impossible…

That's the exact same fallacy you are proposing to fix a symptom and not the problem. You want to reign in the government YOU ARE ELECTING TO GOVERN you with technology instead of real political work. Either vote different or get into politics and fix yourself. Your wikipedia link doesn't show anything regarding abuse of the governing body ALL of the examples are from private persons.

Any modern state implements separation of powers, trias politica in most cases. Your argument ignores that. You also haven't made clear what fallacy you mean.

Want to fix child abuse? Fund teachers and child care. Apple cannot help those kids and I don't mean that as an indignation towards the company.

Re: One Bad Apple

#482

Post by unethical_ban »

throwaway15773 wrote: post #278
cromwellian wrote: post #88

I don't see many people pushing back on the child pornography laws themselves that are the cause of this. I'm stepping into a hornets nest by even bringing this up, because any criticism of the laws on the books makes one look they're a pedo, so I'll preface by saying, child pornography (filmed with actual kids) is vile and disgusting, but it is the production of it that is evil to be fought and suppressed, not the p…

Relatedly, I don't see much discussion around the nuances of what counts as cp. In my experience, the vast majority of cp people are likely to come into contact with is "consensual" (the definition of consent gets weird here) images taken by teenagers of themselves, not old men raping little kids. So what happens if a 17 year old girl takes pictures of herself, sends them to her partner, they break up, he posts them…

My understanding of the problem is that you are entirely wrong as to the ratio of "accidental" underage photos vs. "evil" photos. CSAM is "Child Sexual Abuse Material" and the abuse part is apparently more widespread than the public knows or wants to know.

I have objections to this tool and have many of the same concerns expressed in these comments, but your example seems like a bit of a corner case compared to the broader "government panopticon" problem.

Re: One Bad Apple

#483

Post by zepto »

cvwright wrote: post #459
zepto wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t matter what you label it. Hand wringing over making things worse in China is not a valid concern.

Fine, then let’s talk about other countries. Does anyone seriously doubt that Germany will use this mechanism to ban Nazi imagery? Then from there, it’s not a big leap to talk about controlling far right (or far left) memes in France or the UK. More insidiously, suppose some politician in a western liberal democracy was caught with underage kids, and there were blackmail photos that leaked. Do you think those hashes…

> Fine, then let’s talk about other countries.

I’ll let you change the subject, but let’s note that every time someone realizes privacy in China as a concern, it’s just bullshit.

> Does anyone seriously doubt that Germany will use this mechanism to ban Nazi imagery?

Yes.

> Then from there, it’s not a big leap to talk about controlling far right (or far left) memes in France or the UK.

This one is harder for me to argue against. Those countries could order such a mechanism, whether Apple had built this or not. Because those countries have hate speech laws and no constitutional mechanism protecting freedom of speech.

This is a real problem, but banning certain kinds of speech is popular in these societies. It is disturbingly popular in the US too. That is not Apple’s doing.

Re: One Bad Apple

#484

Post by zepto »

dmitriid wrote: post #348
zepto wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t matter what you label it. Hand wringing over making things worse in China is not a valid concern.

I'm old enough to remember when the revelation that NSA is spying on everyone was a shock. Now people are seriously arguing that continuous searching through your entire life without any warrant or justification by opaque algorithms is fine. It only took what, 10 years?

> Now people are seriously arguing that continuous searching through your entire life without any warrant or justification by opaque algorithms is fine.

Where is anyone arguing that?

Re: One Bad Apple

#485

Post by michaelt »

hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #7

NCMEC has essentially shows that they have zero regard for privacy and called all privacy activists "screeching voices of the minority". At the same time, they're at the center point of a highly opaque, entrenched (often legally mandated) censorhip infrastructure that can and will get accounts shut down irrecoverably and possibly people's homes raided, on questionable data: In one of the previous discussions, I've se…

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper. I'm the author. I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-f…

It's somewhat off-topic for the article, but I'm curious as to why you retain images uploaded for analysis after the analysis is completed?

After all, surely 99% of uploaders don't hold the copyright for the image they're uploading, so retaining them is on shaky legal grounds to begin with, if you're the kind of person who wants to be in strict compliance with the law - and at the same time, it forces you and your moderators to handle child porn several times a day (not a job I'd envy) and you say you risk a felony conviction.

Wouldn't it be far simpler, and less legally risky, if you didn't retain the images?

Re: One Bad Apple

#486

Post by zepto »

_jn wrote: post #447
zepto wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make it illegal to offer E2E encryption without this backdoor. It isn’t a back door to E2E encryption. It can’t even be used to search for a specific image on a person’s device. It could be used possibly to find a collection of images that are not CSAM but are disliked by the state, assuming Apple is willing to enter into a conspiracy with NCMEC.

It seems that Apple does not need to be a co-conspirator, and that it would be sufficient if someone added ‘malicious’ hashes to the NCMEC database.

Not correct. When enough images to trigger a match are detected apple employees verify the visual derivative to make sure it matches before an alert is generated. They would need to collude.

Re: One Bad Apple

#487

Post by cvwright »

zepto wrote: post #483
cvwright wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, then let’s talk about other countries. Does anyone seriously doubt that Germany will use this mechanism to ban Nazi imagery? Then from there, it’s not a big leap to talk about controlling far right (or far left) memes in France or the UK. More insidiously, suppose some politician in a western liberal democracy was caught with underage kids, and there were blackmail photos that leaked. Do you think those hashes…

> Fine, then let’s talk about other countries. I’ll let you change the subject, but let’s note that every time someone realizes privacy in China as a concern, it’s just bullshit. > Does anyone seriously doubt that Germany will use this mechanism to ban Nazi imagery? Yes. > Then from there, it’s not a big leap to talk about controlling far right (or far left) memes in France or the UK. This one is harder for me to arg…

It’s just sad how things have shifted.

During the Cold War, the West in general and the US in particular were proud of spreading freedom and democracy. Rock & roll and Levi’s played a big role in bringing down the USSR.

Then in the 90s, the internet had this same ethos. People fought against filters on computers in libraries and schools.

Now that rich westerners have their porn and their video games, apparently many are happy to let the rest of the world rot.

I guess I just expected more.

Re: One Bad Apple

#488

Post by zepto »

cvwright wrote: post #487
zepto wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fine, then let’s talk about other countries. I’ll let you change the subject, but let’s note that every time someone realizes privacy in China as a concern, it’s just bullshit. > Does anyone seriously doubt that Germany will use this mechanism to ban Nazi imagery? Yes. > Then from there, it’s not a big leap to talk about controlling far right (or far left) memes in France or the UK. This one is harder for me to arg…

It’s just sad how things have shifted. During the Cold War, the West in general and the US in particular were proud of spreading freedom and democracy. Rock & roll and Levi’s played a big role in bringing down the USSR. Then in the 90s, the internet had this same ethos. People fought against filters on computers in libraries and schools. Now that rich westerners have their porn and their video games, apparently many…

I actually feel the same way. I miss those earlier eras.

I just think that exaggerating scares is part of the problem, not the solution, regardless of which side of a debate is doing it.

Re: One Bad Apple

#489

Post by fumar »

tylersmith wrote: post #113
fumar wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do elected officials act as fake representatives to the people that elected them in the first place? Has it always been this way? It doesn’t matter left or right. The governing bodies should obey the people not the other way around.

> The governing bodies should obey the people not the other way around. Then they wouldn't be the governing body. By definition the governing body does not obey the people; they govern the people.

Isn't a democratic governing body representing the will of the people and society?

Re: One Bad Apple

#490

Post by vorpalhex »

jolux wrote: post #316
vorpalhex wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple gave up in the face of China. Why not the US too?

Because they have legal avenues in the US that they don’t have in China? Easy.

They had a legal avenue in China called leaving. That was not profitable though, so they compromised their ethics in exchange for money.
Post reply on HN