An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology • Hacker News Board

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#581

Post by croes » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #516

croes wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only finds known pictures of child abuse not new ones and especially it doesn't find the perpetrators or prevent the abuse. But it creates a infrastructure for all other kind of "criminal" data. I bet sooner or later governments want to include other hashes to find the owners of specific files. Could be bomb creation manuals, could be flyers against a corrupt regime. The sky is the limit and the road to hell is…

> This only finds known pictures of child abuse not new ones No, it finds images that have similar perceptual hashes, typically using the hamming distance or another metric to calculate differences between hashes. I've built products that do similar things. False positives are abound with perceptual hashes, especially when you start fuzzy matching them.

But these are just variations of known pictures to recognize them if they cropped or scaled. The hash of a really new picture isn't similar to the hash of a known picture.

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#582

Post by zepto » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #574

zepto wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So in the real world we know that the majority of child abuse comes from people that children already know. Historically this has been regarded as true, but according to the FBI, online predation is a growing problem. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators > Your mistake here is assuming that anything that technologists can build will ever change those people's minds or make them ease up on calls to ban e…

> Arguing that concerns about children are overblown or being exploited for nefarious means may be ‘true’, but it does nothing to provide an alternative that Apple could use - If the stats don't justify their fears - And I come up with a technological solution that will make the stats even lower - Their fears will not be reduced - Because their fears are not based on the stats ---- > Apple’s customers do include many…

> Their fear is real, but it can not be solved by any technological invention or policy change, including Apple's current system. Because you're telling me that they're scared regardless of what the reality of the situation is, you're telling me they're scared regardless of what the stats are.

Not really.

I’m agreeing that parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats, and are unlikely to believe anyone who claimed they shouldn’t be. The ‘stats’ as you put it won’t change this.

Not because the stats are wrong, but because they are insufficient, and in fact predation will likely continue in a different form even if we can show a particular form to not be very prevalent. The claim to have access to ‘the reality of the situation’ is not going to be accepted.

You won’t be able to solve the problem through education or emotional support because you can’t actually prove that the problem isn’t real.

You actually don’t know the size of the problem yourself, which is why you are not able to address it conclusively here.

What I am saying is that we need to accept that this is the environment, and if we want less invasive technical solutions to problems people think are real, and which you cannot prove are not, then we need to create them.

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#583

Post by vineyardmike » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

mirkules wrote: post #572

vineyardmike wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But now its on your device. "Its just when you upload to icloud or recieve an iMessage" they say. BUT the software's on your device forever. What about next year? What about after an authoritarian goverment approaches them? By 2023 it might be searching non-uploaded photos. You can always not use cloud tech like PhotoDNA but you can't not use software BUILT IN to your device. Especially when its not transparent.

It’s also not inconceivable to access the camera live and perform recognition live on feeds. It’s not even that expensive to do that anymore.

Facial recognition is already part of all camera software today.

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#584

Post by babesh » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #579

babesh wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no end to the loss of privacy in the name of safety if your bogeyman is increasingly sophisticated actors. The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. Isn’t that what the FBI is complaining about, that they have grown increasingly sophisticated? The more sophisticated privacy adherents will also avoid Apple and resort to end to encryption and…

> The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning. They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them. As far as the FBI goes, this is presumably n…

My point is that the FBI will just use that as a pretext for greater intrusion into privacy. Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos?

Why limit it to child predators? Why not use this too for terrorists and anyone the FBI or any other government deems as subversive?

In fact, if you just look at what the FBI has been saying over the years, that is exactly what they intend to do.

People who say that this is a slippery slope argument don’t even notice that they have been sliding down that slippery slope for decades.

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#585

Post by echelon » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

hellbannedguy wrote: post #483

dehrmann wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just surprised they did it for CP and not terrorism.

I think it's terrorism, and CP. I have a feeling the CIA, or FBI, had a little chat with Tim Cook, and Tim caved into the pressure. Who knows they might have some very embarrassing info about the man, and used it to get what they wanted. I guarantee government, including the IRS, Immigration, etc. will be accessing Apples severs. At least we won't have to listen to Apple privacy commercials anymore.

"It would be a shame if your company had to be split up for antitrust reasons."

The sad thing is that it does need to be split up, but this was probably the stick used by the FBI/CIA to get their way. And as long as Apple does what they want, they'll let it go about its merry way.

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#586

Post by zepto » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

babesh wrote: post #584

zepto wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning. They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them. As far as the FBI goes, this is presumably n…

My point is that the FBI will just use that as a pretext for greater intrusion into privacy. Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos? Why limit it to child predators? Why not use this too for terrorists and anyone the FBI or any other government deems as subversive? In fact, if you just look at what the FBI has been saying over the years, that is exactly what they intend to do. Peo…

Where is anyone arguing against you? The point is that the demands for solutions may be neverending, but that doesn’t mean the problems are non-existent.

If we want to limit the damage caused by the dynamic, we need to offer better solutions, not just complain about the FBI.

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#587

Post by babesh » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #586

babesh wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the FBI will just use that as a pretext for greater intrusion into privacy. Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos? Why limit it to child predators? Why not use this too for terrorists and anyone the FBI or any other government deems as subversive? In fact, if you just look at what the FBI has been saying over the years, that is exactly what they intend to do. Peo…

Where is anyone arguing against you? The point is that the demands for solutions may be neverending, but that doesn’t mean the problems are non-existent. If we want to limit the damage caused by the dynamic, we need to offer better solutions, not just complain about the FBI.

You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on this slope for decades which deems that the argument is valid and not fallacious.

From Wikipedia’s entry for slippery slope: “The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground”

This isn’t a middle ground. Every year the supposed middle ground shifts toward less and less privacy. Notice the slippery slope? The very presence of this means that the supposed middle ground just slipped further?

Isn’t that obvious?

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#588

Post by vngzs » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

ipodopt wrote: post #315

fsflover wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I take it you have the v3 with the standard boot drive? Yes, v3. What do you mean by "standard boot drive"? Using SSD if that's what you mean.

The v4 updated the screen which burned more power. I remember telling them my real life results and them proceeding to not update their product marketing page while admitting it was based on the v3. I feel like they were already stretching it to begin with with v3 but you would know. I also got the fastest SSD they had in checkout. Which I think contributed to the booting race condition. I never got a link to an upst…

Sad the high DPI displays didn't go well. My eyes can't take the 1080 vertical pixel displays that are still so common on open laptops nowadays. But I really want to like the Librems; there aren't many trustworthy laptops with kill switches out there.

I have an X1 Carbon Gen 9 with a high DPI 16:10 display, 32GB RAM, and anywhere from 4 to 12 hours of battery depending on workload. It's worth a look for people who can tolerate Lenovo's history (BIOS rootkits targeting Windows in the non-ThinkPad lines).

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#589

Post by zepto » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

babesh wrote: post #587

zepto wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is anyone arguing against you? The point is that the demands for solutions may be neverending, but that doesn’t mean the problems are non-existent. If we want to limit the damage caused by the dynamic, we need to offer better solutions, not just complain about the FBI.

You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on this slope for decades which deems that the argument is valid and not fallacious. From Wikipedia’s entry for slippery slope: “The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of midd…

You’re ignoring the sentence after I mention the slippery slope, where I say:

> These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.

I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.

Re: An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

#590

Post by bisRepetita » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #520

bisRepetita wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you aren’t the decision maker. That is only partially true. If we both write, other people may read, then you and me possibly influence people. Wa are social beings, we are influenced by people around us. So we're both a tiny part of the decision process. And you talk about political decision: politicians keep listening to people through polls, phone calls received, and other ways. Even dictators can be, when number…

> If you believe that child pornography is a massive issue, I respect that. I just would have hoped you could better describe the actual size of the problem and its evolution. I don’t mind whether you are convinced. I’m not trying to convince you about the size of the problem. My position isn’t about how large the threat is. I don’t have any information that you don’t have access to. My position is that if we care ab…

>if we care about privacy we have to accept that people other than ourselves think the problem is big enough to warrant these measures.

Not sure what you mean here by "accept". Accept the fact those people and opinions exist? Sure! Accept their opinion without challenging, without asking questions? No. Accept this opinion is big and rational enough for the majority to follow and make laws? No.

>You have already lost this battle

What makes you think that? That's just your opinion. You know, even when battles are lost, wars can be won later won. "Right to Repair", "Net neutrality", "Global Warming", and here: "open source hardware". All those battles have been fluid. Telling people it is over, it is too late, is a very common trick to try to influence/convince people to accept the current state. That certainly does not make it true.

I understand you may try to convince readers that it is over, because it may be your opinion. If that's the case, just be frank about it, and speak proudly for yourself of what you wish. Don't hide behind "politicians", "tech companies" and "other people".