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

The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

piotr.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 595 posts

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#581

Post by simondotau »

heavyset_go wrote: post #578
tpush wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's system only concerns exact hash matches, and is built so transformed images hash to the same number.

> and is built so transformed images hash to the same number. That is the goal of all perceptual hashing algorithms. > Apple's system only concerns exact hash matches Then it is almost useless. All someone would need to do to evade the system is make minor enough adjustments to illegal images so that the distance between resulting hash and the original is minor. In reality, perceptual hashing systems use fuzzy matchi…

Or here’s an idea: don’t import CSAM into your camera roll in the first place? This is what I don’t get. I’ve never felt compelled to import regular porn into my camera roll–and that stuff is legal. Who the hell is going to be doing that with stuff they know will land them in prison?

I can believe that some people might be stupid enough to believe that a private Facebook group was secure. But who the hell co-mingles their deepest darkest dirtiest secrets with pictures of their family and last night’s dinner?

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#582

Post by washadjeffmad »

Spooky23 wrote: post #567
washadjeffmad wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF article refers to a "classifier", not just matching hashes. So, three different things. I don't know how much you know about them, but this is what the EFF's role is. Privacy can't be curtailed uncritically or unchecked. We don't have a way to guarantee that Apple won't change how this works in the future, that it will never be compromised domestically or internationally, or that children and families won't b…

You’re making my point. Nobody cares about your penis pictures. EFF is an advocacy group, and you need to read between the lines what they say because they have a specific set of principles that may or may not align with reality. They published a bad article and took an extreme stance about what could be as opposed to what is. Parents care about children sending or receiving explicit material. This is for behavioral,…

So why doesn't Apple release an iPod Touch or iPhone without a camera? Maybe release child safe versions of their apps that can't send or receive images from unapproved (by parents) parties?

There seem to be an endless number of ways to achieve what they claim without invasively scanning people's private data.

Figure it out.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#583

Post by markdown »

emodendroket wrote: post #555
stickfigure wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly why people avoided taking naughty pictures with film. Digital, on the other hand, is private. And should remain so.

According to an article I read this morning in the WSJ, you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud, at which point it would be flagged for review, and even then only the flagged images would be shown to the reviewer. This strikes me as not a serious privacy risk. Article here: https://apple.news/AhVzAY--DT36Oz22W7taL9Q

> you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud

For now.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#584

Post by postalrat »

robertoandred wrote: post #554
postalrat wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one compare encrypted forms of hashes?

You hash images in the same way, then encrypt the hashes in the same way, and see if the results match.

Then you are just comparing hashes. I don't see what you gained by encrypted the hash.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#585

Post by emodendroket »

markdown wrote: post #583
emodendroket wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to an article I read this morning in the WSJ, you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud, at which point it would be flagged for review, and even then only the flagged images would be shown to the reviewer. This strikes me as not a serious privacy risk. Article here: https://apple.news/AhVzAY--DT36Oz22W7taL9Q

> you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud For now.

If your concern was that they might at some future point change their policies and do something objectionable then you should not be using iCloud at all.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#586

Post by atatatat »

ekianjo wrote: post #444

> The worst part is: how do I put my money where my mouth is? Am I going back to using Linux on the desktop (2022 will be the year of Linux on the desktop, remember), debugging wifi drivers and tirelessly trying to make resume-from-suspend work? Oh come on. DOn't make it sound like it's that bad. Wifi is a solved problem for a long time now, and you can buy Lenovo, System76 or Tuxedo if you want to make sure 100% thi…

Or Dell.

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#587

Post by markdown »

emodendroket wrote: post #585
markdown wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud For now.

If your concern was that they might at some future point change their policies and do something objectionable then you should not be using iCloud at all.

"If you're concerned that a bad thing might happen some day, you shouldn't today oppose things that pave the way for that bad thing happening."

"If you're concerned that a hurricane might blow your house over some day, you shouldn't build one today."

"If you're concerned that your child might grow up to be a psychopath, you shouldn't have kids."

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#588

Post by xdennis »

emodendroket wrote: post #555
stickfigure wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly why people avoided taking naughty pictures with film. Digital, on the other hand, is private. And should remain so.

According to an article I read this morning in the WSJ, you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud, at which point it would be flagged for review, and even then only the flagged images would be shown to the reviewer. This strikes me as not a serious privacy risk. Article here: https://apple.news/AhVzAY--DT36Oz22W7taL9Q

Tim Apple doesn't have the right to see a single one of my photos, let alone thirty.

How is Apple going compensate the innocent people?

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#589

Post by xdennis »

gonehome wrote: post #413
salawat wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. All the fabs and stuff we have now shoufd be devoted to implementing a surveillance state. This must happen. It cannot be any other way. This is what you sound like. The problem here isn't the tech. It's that Big Tech has deluded society into believing privacy and personal ownership of devices doesn't exist because it would inconvenice Big Tech. Law enforcement echoes it because they were spoiled by the brief pe…

I’m not making statements about the way things ought to be, I’m being pragmatic about the way things are. We’re trusting a lot of the stack. Apple’s policy as described is reasonable. If you distrust it because of the things they could do, that same logic applies to the entire stack. The nature of modern software distribution is that the majority of the stuff we use from centralized corporations is governed by policy…

> Apple’s policy as described is reasonable.

Apple is performing warrantless searches, and somehow people see it as okay because Apple is not the government (even though it functions as a state agency in this regard).

Re: The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

#590

Post by xdennis »

shapefrog wrote: post #92
rootusrootus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I found the EFF's piece to be really disappointing, coming from an organization I'm otherwise aligned with nearly 100% of the time.

EFF today is really not the organisation it was just a few years ago. I dont know who they hired badly, but the reasoned takedowns have been replaced with hysterical screaming.

> hysterical screaming

Ah, I see you work for Apple, given the language ("the screeching voices of the minority").

Post reply on HN