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

651–660 of 860 posts

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

#651

Post by pbasista »

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…

> your own, trusty iPhone

iPhone runs software which is in full control of Apple. They take active measures to stop general public from auditing its behavior (i.e. no source code, no API specifications, etc).

In my opinion, such a device can never be considered as belonging to their users or "trusted" in any reasonable way. The reason is that its root functionality always remains in control of a different entity.

I believe that such a relationship can more accurately be described as a lease.

Instead of providing specifications and source code, which would help establish the fundamental trust in their products and their behavior, Apple seems to increase their reliance on the "trust me bro" promises, which their current user base has accepted.

So far.

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

#652

Post by emodendroket »

adrianN wrote: post #575
ElFitz wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China just hung it's biggest tech companies out to dry. Do you really think they would care in the slightest about banning iPhone? Or that Putin cares more about people not being able to buy what amounts to a luxury item, than being able to hunt down opposition supporters?

Yeah I'm pretty sure that this wasn't an easy decision for the Chinese government. Even in dictatorships you can't afford to piss off the population too much.

I'm not sure a move to soak rich guys getting a little too big for their britches is that unpopular with the general population.

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

#653

Post by emodendroket »

zarzavat wrote: post #542
emodendroket wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could they though? An authoritarian government could just as easily say "if you do not implement this feature, we will not allow you to operate in this country" and refuse to entertain legal challenges.

Authoritarian countries are the least of the worries. There's a large class of illegal imagery that is policed in democratic countries: copyrighted media. We are only two steps away from having your phone rat you to the MPAA because you downloaded a movie and stored it on your phone. I can guarantee that some industry bigwigs are salivating at the prospect of this tech. Imagine youtube copyright strikes but local to…

All these years I have heard of people getting in trouble for sharing copyrighted materials with others but never for possessing them or downloading them (BitTorrent somewhat blurs the line here). And there's nothing illegal about ripping your own CDs. I find this scenario far-fetched. iTunes Match would seem to be a longrunning honeypot if you take this seriously.

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

#654

Post by swiley »

rz2k wrote: post #253

I stopped my Apple Music subscription and downgraded iCloud to free, then donated a year of those fees to the EFF. $13/month is nothing to Apple, and I really regret it since photos in iCloud is really convenient, however it feels unethical to contribute to the Apple services system when it will inevitably be used to hurt people like dissidents and whistle blowers. It is arrogant to blow off security and human rights…

I fomated my iPhone and drained the battery.

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

#656

Post by sneak »

GuB-42 wrote: post #613
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think something else happened, and to be honest I think many at Apple behind this decision are likely pretty surprised by the blowback. That is, it seems like Apple really wanted to preserve "end-to-end" encryption, but they needed to do something to address the CSAM issue lest governments come down on them hard. Thus, my guess is, at least at the beginning, they saw this as a strong win for privacy. As th…

Adding to the confusion, they announced both the AI powered parental control feature for iMessage and hash-based scanning of iCloud pictures. The iMessage thing is actual spyware, by design, it is a way for parents to spy on their children, which is fine as long as it is a choice and the parents are in control. And that's the case here. The iCloud thing is much more restrictive, comparing hashes of pictures before yo…

They're doing it clientside so that they can do it for images and files that aren't ever sent off the device.

I am increasingly convinced this is a backroom deal, just like the iCloud Backup e2e feature (designed and, as I understand it, partially implemented) being nixed on demand (but not legal compulsion) from the FBI.

If you get big enough, the 1A doesn't apply to you anymore.

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

#657

Post by drunkpotato »

salawat wrote: post #423
bostonsre wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I agree. I see so many comments where people view the issue is black and white and that apple is clearly in the wrong. Yes, privacy is a great ideal. There are absolute monsters in this world and there is zero chance that no apple employees have brushed up against those monsters. I would ask that every single developer step back and think about putting themselves into a situation where software that you write is…

Easy. When I was young, I was not effectively spied on. My activity and digital trail were ephemeral, and hard to pin down. i wasn't the subkect of constant analysis and scrutiny. I had the privilege of being invited into the engine of an idling train to share an Engineer's drinks along with my parents and no one batted an eye. There were pedophiles then too. guess what? We didn't sacrifice everyone's right to privac…

Actually, as long as the monsters are powerful and connected, they are well-protected, then and now.

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

#658

Post by [deleted] »

whoisjuan wrote: post #132

This CSAM Prevention initiative by Apple is a 180 degress change of their general message around privacy. Imagine investing hundreds of millions of dollars in pro-privacy programs, privacy features, privacy marketing, etc... just to pull this reverse card. Of course this is going to spark concern within their own ranks. It's like working for a food company that claims to use organic, non-processed, fair-trade ingredi…

[deleted]

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

#659

Post by sneak »

Tsiklon wrote: post #603
feanaro wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CSAM is beyond abhorrent, morally reprehensible and absolutely should be stopped. This is not in question. Agreed. And the same holds for this subversion of user control of devices. It too is beyond abhorrent and morally reprehensible.

I agree with you, however they are different kinds of reprehensible, I don’t believe they are equivalent. One stokes an intimate and personal fear or revulsion, something that any parent or anyone with empathy will feel. The second allows for quiet enforcement of the subversion of the relationship the state has with it’s citizens. Both are awful, but in their own incomparable way.

CSAM is actually pretty rare in society. Most people aren't sexually attracted to children.

iPhones running current iOS are not rare at all. Much of our society carries and uses them.

They are not equivalent in scale.

Subverting every iPhone in the world (or country) to spy for the pigs is a much worse crime than all of the CSAM in the world (or country).

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

#660

Post by GekkePrutser »

londons_explore wrote: post #608
speleding wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who frequently has to help older family members recover from lost passwords and broken phones, I sincerely hope they leave strong encryption of backups to be "opt out". It's fine if you know you want to be the sole person in the world who can get to your data and have the discipline to store master passwords, and you accept Apple support cannot help you even if you have a purchase receipt for the device. B…

> help older family members recover from lost passwords and broken phones, Apple just needs to design good UX to help these people. Perhaps a large cardboard 'key' comes with every phone. When first setting up the phone, you scan a QR code on it to encrypt your data with the key, and then you tell the owner that of they ever lose the key to their phone, they won't be able to get in again. People understand that - it'…

You don't want that key to be in the box. Because of Apple printed it, they know it.

It's better if the key is generated when you already have the phone.

Post reply on HN