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

Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 860 posts

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#51

Post by dragonwriter »

himaraya wrote: post #15
michaelbjames wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand, they're acting as an agent of the government, it's a private company. So, the 4th amendment protecting against unreasonable searches _by the government_ does not apply.

No, the Fourth Amendment applies to private actors acting on behalf of the government.

> No, the Fourth Amendment applies to private actors acting on behalf of the government.

It applies to private actors acting as agents of the government, it doesn't apply to private actors who for private reasons not directed by the government conduct searches and report suspicious results to the government (other property and privacy laws might, though.)

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#52

Post by petermcneeley »

nottorp wrote: post #9
jonplackett wrote: post #5

In their attempt to make this extra private by scanning 'on device', I think they've managed to make it feel worse. If they scan my iCloud photos in iCloud, well lots of companies scan stuff when you upload it. It's on their servers, they're responsible for it. They don't want to be hosting CSAM. It feels much worse them turning your own, trusty iPhone against you. I know that isn't how you should look at it, but tha…

That is how you should look at it. They have no business scanning the phones for anything, period. I'll refer you to the poem beginning with "First they came for the Jews...".

The poem begins with "First they came for the socialists.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#53

Post by Componica »

trainsplanes wrote: post #47
Componica wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's most likely a demand by China so that they can create an infrastructure to locate political dissidents. Oh look, a Winnie the Pooh Xi meme ended up in your gallery/inbox. Why is there a knock at the door? I'm pretty sure thats the real reason.

It’s silly to think the US government hasn’t been twisting their arm to do this for years.

My ears perk up whenever I hear a "Just think of the Children" argument because after Sandy Hook, I'm pretty certain the US could careless about children. There's a real reason behind this.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#54

Post by Hackbraten »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #34

I want to own the devices I buy, hardware and software. Apple has no business doing what is the role of a state. I, quite simply, don't trust them.

Me neither. I used to trust them to do the right thing for their customers but not anymore.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#55

Post by adrr »

trainsplanes wrote: post #47
Componica wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's most likely a demand by China so that they can create an infrastructure to locate political dissidents. Oh look, a Winnie the Pooh Xi meme ended up in your gallery/inbox. Why is there a knock at the door? I'm pretty sure thats the real reason.

It’s silly to think the US government hasn’t been twisting their arm to do this for years.

My bet it was the US government. Predicted fallout doesn’t seem something Apple would do themselves with no monetary gain.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#56

Post by tmdg »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #39
jonplackett wrote: post #5

In their attempt to make this extra private by scanning 'on device', I think they've managed to make it feel worse. If they scan my iCloud photos in iCloud, well lots of companies scan stuff when you upload it. It's on their servers, they're responsible for it. They don't want to be hosting CSAM. It feels much worse them turning your own, trusty iPhone against you. I know that isn't how you should look at it, but tha…

The practical difference is that with on-device scanning, the system is just a few bit flips away from scanning every photo on your device, instead of just the ones that are about to be uploaded. With server-side scanning, the separation is clear—what's on Apple's server can be scanned, and what's only on your phone cannot. This all plays so perfectly into my long-time fears about the locked down nature of the iPhone…

I feel like this is a false sense of security. Even before this change, they can easily access and scan photos on your device. If they do any post-processing of the image on device, they already do.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#57

Post by kilroy123 »

gbrown wrote: post #32
travoc wrote: post #7

Can someone explain how Apple being coaxed or coerced into searching all of our personal devices for illegal files by federal law enforcement is not an unconstitutional warrantless search?

Simple - our laws haven't evolved with technology. That's why your mail has about a million times more protection than your email.

Yup. That's what happens when the country is ran by a bunch of old lawyers.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#58

Post by throwaway0a5e »

mc32 wrote: post #14
travoc wrote: post #7

Can someone explain how Apple being coaxed or coerced into searching all of our personal devices for illegal files by federal law enforcement is not an unconstitutional warrantless search?

Probably the same way people say that when Twitter moderates speech on their platform it’s not censorship.

Or when the NSA feeds your texts through their ML and into their DB it's not a "search" because humans haven't gone looking for it.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

syshum wrote: post #16
michaelbjames wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand, they're acting as an agent of the government, it's a private company. So, the 4th amendment protecting against unreasonable searches _by the government_ does not apply.

Acting as a agent, used to anyway, mean the 4th amendment attached to the company if they WERE NOT acting as an agent then the 4th would not apply. I think they way they get around that is not do not report to the FBI but instead to NCMEC a "non-profit"

Reporting to the government doesn't make you a government agent, doing the search at the direction of the government does.

If a private citizen, on their own initiative, searches your house, finds contraband, and reports it to the government, they may be guilty of a variety of torts and crimes (both civil and criminal trespass, among others, are possibilities), there is no fourth amendment violation.

If a police officer asks them to do it, though, there is a different story.

Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

#60

Post by schaefer »

travoc wrote: post #7

Can someone explain how Apple being coaxed or coerced into searching all of our personal devices for illegal files by federal law enforcement is not an unconstitutional warrantless search?

I am not a Lawyer, but my understanding is:

The wording of the CSAM law is that content should be scanned when uploaded. That condition "upon upload" triggers the 3rd party doctrine.

Apple has gone above and beyond here, not the actual US gov. So, the bill of rights doesn't apply to Apple's decision to scan content on device, just before it is uploaded.

Post reply on HN