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

81–90 of 860 posts

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

#81

Post by nrabulinski »

faeriechangling wrote: post #70
DarkmSparks wrote: post #61

There are two things that make me think this will be walked back. Firstly, and most importantly, this kind of backdoor is the kind of thing that makes big corps prohibit the use/purchases of devices. Secondly, it seems rife for abuse: dont like someone who uses an ios device, msg them some cp and destroy their entire life.

It seems easy as hell for them to just change the system to do server-side scanning instead of client-side scanning and it would probably be enough to calm the horde. I think people can understand, Apple can't have certain content on their servers. People have a much harder time understanding that Apple needs to make sure you don't have certain content on your phone.

If iCloud content was encrypted (as it should be given what Apple says about themselves and privacy) they wouldn’t and couldn’t care any less what the data on their servers contains since, ideally, they’d have no way of decrypting that data. No need for any privacy invasion!

> Apple needs to make sure you don’t have certain content on your phone. Excuse me, what? What does Apple care what I have on my device?

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

#82

Post by stephc_int13 »

himaraya wrote: post #76
stephc_int13 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what they are thinking. This project is probably going to cost millions, they won't catch any pedophiles, they will only scare them so they don't use Apple devices. Nobody asked them to do it. This is none of their business. It can only creates new vulnerabilities, privacy issues and general annoyance.

Just think of it as a form of lobbying.

What's the end-game here? I don't follow.

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

#83

Post by vkou »

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.

This cuts both ways. Our laws not evolving with technology is also the reason why tapping and intercepting secured digital communication is orders of magnitude more difficult than tapping someone's analog phone line, or why decrypting a hard drive is far more difficult for the police than sawing apart a safe.

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

#84

Post by kurofune »

XorNot wrote: post #50
kurofune wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what's this take based on Racism and ignorance.

Apple isn't being pressured from China, but criticizing the CCP as the brutal dictatorship it is is not racist (and that idea is done verbatim CCP propaganda).

Randomly suggesting that every authoritarian decision taken unilaterally by an american company was made to please the evil chinese government while offering no substantial proof is not "criticizing the CCP", it is just shoehorning US's far-right talking points into a thread that has nothing to do with it.

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

#85

Post by dragonwriter »

greyface- wrote: post #67
ahnick wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A EULA cannot force you to give up your constitutional rights.

Constitutional rights can be voluntarily waived.

> Constitutional rights can be voluntarily waived.

That...varies. The right to a speedy trial can be waived. The right against enslavement cannot. You can consent to a warrantless or otherwise unreasonable search given adequate specificity, but outside of a condition for release from otherwise-constitutional more severe deprivation of liberty (e.g., parole from prison) I don't think it can be generally waived in advance, only searches specifically and immediately consented to when being executed. But I don't have any particular cases in mind, and that understanding could be wrong. But “constitutional rights can be waived” is definitely way to broad to be a good useful guide for resolving specific isssues.

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

#87

Post by coolspot »

jpxw wrote: post #66

Question for Android users: do you have Google Photos backup enabled? I’d say most people have iCloud Photos enabled, so I’m trying to gauge whether that’s true of Google Photos too. Google Photos also does CSAM scanning, I believe

On both platforms those are enabled by default.

96% users keep defaults[1].

[1] - My estimate

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

#88

Post by nullc »

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?

They aren't being coaxed or coerced. If they were forced-- or even incentivized-- by the government to perform these searches than they'd be subject to the fourth amendment protecting against warrantless searches.

Apple is engaging in this activity of their own free will for sake of their own commercial gain and are not being incentivized or coerced by the government in any way.

As such, the warrantless search of the customer data is lawful by virtue of the customer's agreements with Apple.

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

#89

Post by rowanG077 »

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…

Why is this not how you should look at it. This is exactly how I look at it. It's your device, no company should be able to scan shit on a device that they have sold to someone. That's like keeping the key of a house after you have sold it and then checking sneakily every week whether the new owners are doing illegal stuff.

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

#90

Post by shuckles »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #78
shuckles wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple already scans your photos for faces and syncs found faces through iCloud. I’d imagine updating that machine learning model is at least as straightforward as this one.

They're searching for different things though. To my knowledge, before now iOS has never scanned for fingerprints of specific photographs. It would be so darn easy to replace the CSAM database with fingerprints of known tiananmen square photos...

That is a distinction without a difference. I’m sure you could put together quite a good tank man classifier (proof: Google Reverse Image Search works quite well), and it’d catch variations which a perceptual hash wouldn’t.

The only difference is intent. The technical risk has not changed at all.

Post reply on HN