Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources • Hacker News Board

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

#811

Post by ctdonath » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 12:38 PM UTC

ribosometronome wrote: post #767

alwillis wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think essentially no one is complaining about using ML to understand the content of photos… At last in Apple's case, ML is used only if a minor child (less than 13 years old) who is on a Family account where the parent/guardian has opted-in to the ability to be alerted if potentially bad content is either sent or received using the Messages app.

Google and Apple both use ML to understand the content of photos already. Go into your app and you can search for things like "dog", "beer", "birdhouse", and "revolver". Given that it can do all that (and already knows a difference between type of guns), it doesn't seem like a stretch to think it could, if Apple or Google wanted, understand "cocaine", "Winnie the Pooh memes", or whatever repressive-government style w…

Bingo. All Apple has done is add another category for “nude child” with a simple notification when the AI finds one. The tech has arrived; consequences happen.

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

#812

Post by vimacs2 » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 12:54 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #727

vimacs2 wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power which was extended through the use of said technology. I'm fine with focusing on regressive hierarchical systems as the fundamental root of oppression but pretending like the information and mechanical technology introduced in the late 19th century to early 20th century did not massively increase the reach of the state is just being ridiculous. Prior to motorised vehicles and the telegraph for example, borders…

There's a flipside to this, too: technology doesn't just improve the ability of the state to enforce law (or social mores), it also improves the ability of it's subjects to violate it with impunity. Borders in medieval Europe weren't nearly as necessary because the physical ability to travel was limited. Forget traveling from Germany to France - just going to the next town over was a life-threatening affair without a…

A lot of excellent points though it's completely inaccurate to frame the fall of the Soviet Union's scientific progress due to their hierarchy replacing the "prior capitalist one" when the former lead to the mass industrialisation and rapid economic growth that lead to the USSR being the first nation to conquer space flight whereas under the latter, the USSR was an agrarian society suffering from food shortages and mass poverty. The decline of Soviet science and economy had more to do with NATO and American restrictions on trade and movement than something self imposed by the Soviets.

Capitalism is completely compatible with hierarchies and censorship - indeed one could argue that capitalism is completely incompatible with a true flattening of hierarchies since it rests on the ability of an owner class holding a monopoly over the means of production. The majority of dictatorships around the world use capitalism as the basis of it's economy. Following the dissolving of the USSR, Russia continues to be authoritarian and arguably more so than the USSR was past the Stalin era.

Aside from that, I think it's a little premature to frame the internet's ultimate effect on the world as reducing the ability of the government to censor the population when it's only been around for less than 30 years and we are already seeing mass adoption and development of both censorship and surveillance tech that goes beyond even the wildest dreams of 20th century era dictators.

I don't really buy the argument that most technology is invented in systems with freedom and equality either. It just sounds more like something we want to believe than something borne out by data. The internet and rocket ships were the product of the military - an institution that has more to do with using force to enact the will of it's host nation on others and limiting their freedoms than preserving the freedoms of their own, especially for superpowers like the USA and the CCP, which are effectively immune to conquest by military force.

This is in fact the same for the Silicon Valley and most private industry, you only think all this tech is the product of your freedom and equality because all of the actual extreme inequality and lack of freedom is kept compartmentalised to the global south through long and convoluted supply chains. It's not really freedom if only 10% of the actual people involved in the sustaining of an economy have any semblance of it -leaving aside the observation that for even this 10% that represents the average US citizen, their actual democratic agency in the state or in their job is vanishingly low.

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

#813

Post by sneak » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 12:57 PM UTC

unityByFreedom wrote: post #798

sneak wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple turned over all of the San Bernardino iPhone data, as iCloud Backup information is not e2e encrypted and is readable in full by Apple without ever touching or decrypting the phone. The Apple vs FBI narrative was a coordinated marketing move (coordinated between the FBI and Apple) to push that "paragon of privacy and security" brand message. It's false. Apple explicitly preserves a non-e2e backdoor in their cryp…

They didn't unlock that phone for the FBI. The FBI got some foreign contractor to do it. Yes, Apple did turn over data to which they had access. Their stance back then was not a farce.

They didn't need to, all of the phone's data was in a non-e2e iCloud Backup, which they did unlock for the FBI.

Hence, farce.

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

#814

Post by Nextgrid » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

oarsinsync wrote: post #759

y7 wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. If Apple wants to go this route, they should abstain from pushing the user towards using iCloud as they currently do, and instead just present a clear opt-in choice. "Do you want to enable iCloud photos? Your private photos will be uploaded encrypted to Apple's servers, so that only you can access them. Before uploading, your photos will be locally scanned on your device for any illegal content. Apple will o…

> Your private photos will be uploaded encrypted to Apple's servers, so that only you can access them. This would be a large change from the way it works today, where Apple can view your iCloud photos. They’ve not made any statements indicating that is going to change.

I don't see any reason to implement CSAM scanning on-device as opposed to doing it on the server if it wasn't to switch to a model where the server doesn't have access to the data.

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

#815

Post by Nextgrid » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

GekkePrutser wrote: post #660

londons_explore wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well if the alternative is the current situation where Apple has access anyway, a key that Apple may know is still a better idea.

For even better security they can instead provide an NFC smartcard or hybrid NFC + USB (like a Yubikey) where the key is stored in hardware and can't be extracted.

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

#816

Post by badRNG » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

asperous wrote: post #726

burkaman wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who wants their printer to scan every document they print, and if it sees something the printer manufacturer thinks is illegal it's reported to the police? FYI most (all?) modern printers will refuse to print anything they think is counterfeit money, and will include a unique code traceable back to you in every printed document. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code

Printers may do this but it doesn't call the police on them

But let's be honest here: MIC is a truly upsetting privacy violation all on its own.

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

#817

Post by ElFitz » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #796

grkvlt wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't be disingenuous - fairly obviously it is a donation because it is optional, voluntary and non-compensated.

Is it really voluntary if it is opt-out?

There’s a reason why they strongly encourage people to make their preference clearly known to family & friends.

Because most often, when there’s even the sliver of a doubt on the deceased one's wishes, the corpse will keep all it’s organs to the grave / incinerator.

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

#818

Post by LeapingLennie » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #760

somedude895 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Selling dev consoles on ebay or drugs on the darkweb? We'll take the picture in the listing and find out who took it. Can't find any matches? This is too ineffective. We'll need Apple to store all hashes on all devices for 6 months. The slippery slope argument makes a LOT of sense.

Nope. This would be an illegal search under the 4th Amendment. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/08/12/a-38-year...

Not everyone in the world is protected by the US Constitution and although Apple is initially only rolling this out in the US there is no doubt it will be rolled out in other countries sooner or later.

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

#819

Post by ElFitz » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC

jjgreen wrote: post #803

grkvlt wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't be disingenuous - fairly obviously it is a donation because it is optional, voluntary and non-compensated.

voluntary (adjective) done, made, or given willingly, without being forced or paid to do it (Cambridge) How is my will involved here?

Because you only have to express it for it to be respected.

Which is the bare minimum if you want others to be able to even consider respecting it.

The default choice being, in the absence of any information, the one that increases chances of survival of actually living humans doesn’t seem misguided to me.

——

If you want compulsory and overreaching (although not necessarily bad. Got no opinion on that aspect) rules, over here we:

- can’t disinherit a descendant. The state decides the minimum each one of your genetic or legal relatives can get from your assets

- have to financially support our adult children until an arbitrary time decided by the law

- have to support and assist our parents and grand-parents if they can’t provide for themselves

- basically can be legally compelled to financially assist any ascendant or descendant

- may end up having to pay up after a divorce, even if you had an iron-clad contract, to compensate for the loss of QoL of the spouse with a lesser income

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

#820

Post by emodendroket » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #809

brandon272 wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant in the context of U.S. governments. What Democrat administration wants to ban Apple? What Republican administration wants to ban Apple? Sounds like political suicide on either side: government interference with the country's largest company, an iconic brand, for no reason other than to hopefully spy more on your citizens.

Analogy: the prospect of “vaccine passports” for jurisdictional movement and access is getting serious consideration at all levels of U.S. governance. Not long ago, anything so resembling “papiere, bitte” commonly inspired a sense of violent resistance against totalitarianism. Just takes one engaging “but this is different ” to reframe the worst of humanity to popular compulsion.

There is nothing novel about them besides the name.