Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why they would get all of the images taken that day if the flagged image doesn't actually contain any abuse material. This might not be true, but I've always assumed that if I am suspected of something the police can already access all my iCloud (or any other cloud storage) images with court order.
Yes, they'd get access to every photo you've ever taken if you suffer a hash collision. What court order? Apple spots the hash collision, snitches on you, and then police get all your photos. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?
Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
851–860 of 860 posts
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#852Earlier quoted context omitted.
And all the while: Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It. He raised an estimated £40 million for charities and, during his lifetime, was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser. After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual ab…
Respectfully, I don't understand where you're going with this at all. I could point to it and say, "Wow, we need to make sure nothing like that ever happens again, no matter what the cost to personal liberty!"
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#853Because if there's one thing the whole Jeffrey Epstein thing taught us, is that there's nothing more important to the authorities than children, and they'll do anything to protect them, no matter the cost, even if an actual prince or a current president is involved.
Oh wait, hang on. Actually nothing happened and they don't give a shit about kids.
So why do they want this again?
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#854Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For users, if you enable this feature, but then lose your password, you are entirely screwed and Apple can't help you. Exactly the same with the phone if you forget your PIN/passcode. So they already do this.
First, while the "Erase after X unsuccessful attempts" feature exists, I've never used it and really don't recommend anyone else do so unless you are exceptionally careful. Second, my comment was meant in the context of iCloud - if you don't enable the feature as described, Apple may be able to decrypt and recover something , but if you do go all the way to the logical end, yes, you're out of options.
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#855Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
Because you only have to express it for it to be respected. ... and if you do not know that an opt-out is required to not have your organs removed, then how can it be said that you have willingly contributed them. And if your organs are removed by default, without you actually willing that this be the case, then how can this practice be called "donation"? So instead, shall we call it "organ retrieval", "organ harvest…
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#856Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they'd get access to every photo you've ever taken if you suffer a hash collision. What court order? Apple spots the hash collision, snitches on you, and then police get all your photos. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?
Has it been confirmed that police get your all of your media in case of a collision and not just the offending image? Do they even get the offending image?
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#857Earlier 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.
In fact, it is the more insidious danger of the two, since it can easily strip you from all your freedoms while not evoking as visceral a reaction as the first one.
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#858Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you only have to express it for it to be respected. ... and if you do not know that an opt-out is required to not have your organs removed, then how can it be said that you have willingly contributed them. And if your organs are removed by default, without you actually willing that this be the case, then how can this practice be called "donation"? So instead, shall we call it "organ retrieval", "organ harvest…
so, basically your only problem is that the possibility of opt-out may not be adequately communicated? and, i think everyone would agree that changing the law but not telling anyone would be bad and wrong. but, spoiler alert, that didn't happen. and if we found someone who could or did not understand, the default would be to not use their organs.
And I'd be interested to know of the percentage of UK adults who are aware of the opt-out. I had a search around but couldn't find any surveys, are you aware of any?
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#859Earlier quoted context omitted.
so, basically your only problem is that the possibility of opt-out may not be adequately communicated? and, i think everyone would agree that changing the law but not telling anyone would be bad and wrong. but, spoiler alert, that didn't happen. and if we found someone who could or did not understand, the default would be to not use their organs.
They're dead, so it's often a bit tricky to find out. What you could do is have some way of recording that people have been told about the opt-out, then they could carry a card around with them that says "I have been informed of the opt-out and choose not to, please take my organs". Only take the organs if they are carrying such a card. And I'd be interested to know of the percentage of UK adults who are aware of the…
Re: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources
#860Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 m…
First, the Soviet Union didn't have a prior capitalist hierarchy; the whole reason for Leninism as such was that Russia was a feudal, agrarian society, which in Marx's theory had not progressed to the stage of capitalism and therefore could not progress to communism.
Second, food shortages and mass poverty did not end with the establishment of the Soviet Union; in fact, they became enormously worse. Even before being invaded by Germany in WWII, the Soviet system caused the Holodomor, a famine unprecedented in the history of the Ukraine.
Third, the internet has been around for 52 years, not less than 30. I've personally been using it for 29 years, and I can tell you that it already had a long history when I started using it. One of the founders of Y Combinator first became well-known as a result of breaking significant parts of the internet 33 years ago, an event which resulted in a criminal trial.
Fourth, the internet was the product of universities, although the universities were funded by ARPA. Rocket ships have a long evolution including not only militaries but also recreational fireworks, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, the peaceful space agencies, H. G. Wells, and possibly Lagâri Hasan Çelebi.
Fifth, I don't think the argument is that the technology is necessarily produced by systems with freedom and equality, but that it is invented by them. This is somewhat dubious, but not as open-and-shut wrong as your misunderstanding of it. Goddard's rockets were put into mass production as the V2 in Nazi Germany using slave labor, but he invented them at WPI and Princeton. Tsiolkovsky lived in the Czar's Russia and then the USSR, and his daughter was arrested by the Czar's secret police, but he himself seems to have had considerable freedom to experiment with dirigibles and publish his research (but no slaves to build rockets for him), and indeed he was elected to the Socialist Academy.
I think we can make an excellent case that certain kinds of intellectual repression, whether grassroots or hierarchical, fall very heavily on the kinds of people who tend to invent things. William Kamkwamba's family thought he was insane, Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest, Newton was doing alchemical research that could have gotten him burned at the stake in Spain, Qin Shi Huang buried the Mohists alive, Giordano Bruno was in fact burned at the stake, and the repression of Lysenko's intellectual opposition was a major reason for the USSR's and PRC's economic troubles in the 01950s and 01960s.
Living in the so-called "global south" (a term which I have come to regard as useless for understanding the world system, if not actively counterproductive) I have to tell you that there's very little production of advanced technology going on here. But I live in Argentina, and the situation is different in different countries; Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc., have all done significant technical production for the world economy while in the grip of dictatorships, even though Argentina never has. But most countries don't. If tantalum cost ten times as much, we'd still have cellphones, and you probably wouldn't even be able to detect the price difference.