The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children” • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by madeofpalk » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

still_grokking wrote: post #44

slownews45 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even HN reporting / article linking / comments have been surprisingly low quality and seem to fulminate and declaim with surprisingly little interesting conversation and tons of super big assertions. Linked articles and comments have said apple's brand is now destroyed, that apple is committing child porn felonies somehow with this (the logical jumps and twisting to get to these claims are very far from strong plausi…

From https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On... > The laws related to CSAM are very explicit. 18 U.S. Code § 2252 states that knowingly transferring CSAM material is a felony. (The only exception, in 2258A, is when it is reported to NCMEC.) In this case, Apple has a very strong reason to believe they are transferring CSAM material, and they are sending it to Apple -- not NCMEC. > It does not matt…

Don't you think that Apple has their own attorneys and lawyers?

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

#92

Post by shapefrog » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #58

Spooky23 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF wrote a really shitty hit piece deliberately confused the parental management function with the matching against hashes of illegal images. Two different things. From there, a bazillion hot takes followed.

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.

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

#93

Post by echelon » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #60

AlexandrB wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One logical conclusion of systems like this is that modifying your device in any "unauthorized" way becomes suspicious because you might be trying to evade CSAM detection. So much for jail-breaking and right to repair! I think I'd rather have the non-e2ee cloud.

I don't really buy that - you could just turn off iCloud backup and it'd avoid their current implementation.

And you think this will be the ultimate implementation?

Let the devil in, and he'll treat himself to tea and biscuits.

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

#94

Post by EugeneOZ » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

in "Photos" app, in the bottom right corner there is a "search" icon. When I click it, and entering "beach", I can see photos I've made on the beach (or in the sea, near the beach).

What does it mean? My (and your) photos are scanned and analyzed. I've heard literally zero noise about this feature - nobody was complaining (at least not loud enough to let me notice it).

So, why the hell all of that fuzz is being raised now? You're (and mine) photos will be scanned and analyzed AGAIN. Not by humans, by algorithms. In some really rare cases they might be checked by humans, but you 100% will not have troubles with the law if photos don't contain CSAM.

I have 2 kids and I’m not buying that argument “oh my library of naked photos of my child - I’m in danger”. If you are uploading naked photos of your child to iCloud - it's similar to publishing them. Everything that is uploaded to the Internet, will belong to the Internet, and you don't have so much control of it. If, for some awkward reason, you have sets of naked photos of your child and you want to save them - never ever send them to the Internet.

If you think that not-so-experienced users should not know about this rule - I’m pretty sure they don't even know (or care) about this “scandal”. All of that FUD wave is raised by the journalists and echoes on forums like this one.

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

#95

Post by rvz » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

Yep, that's deceptive advertising on privacy and everyone bought into it and walked straight into the reality distortion field.

Another innovative 'gotcha' by Apple. A reminder that they are not your friends.

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

#96

Post by still_grokking » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

rootsudo wrote: post #83

https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/end-to-end-encryption Geez.

The main statement on that site does once more not explain why real criminals just wouldn't use not backdoored software.

Indeed, it just looks like another move in the current crypto-wars.

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

#97

Post by laserlight » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

still_grokking wrote: post #44

slownews45 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even HN reporting / article linking / comments have been surprisingly low quality and seem to fulminate and declaim with surprisingly little interesting conversation and tons of super big assertions. Linked articles and comments have said apple's brand is now destroyed, that apple is committing child porn felonies somehow with this (the logical jumps and twisting to get to these claims are very far from strong plausi…

From https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On... > The laws related to CSAM are very explicit. 18 U.S. Code § 2252 states that knowingly transferring CSAM material is a felony. (The only exception, in 2258A, is when it is reported to NCMEC.) In this case, Apple has a very strong reason to believe they are transferring CSAM material, and they are sending it to Apple -- not NCMEC. > It does not matt…

IMHO, what Apple is doing is not _knowingly_ transferring CSAM material. Very strong reason to believe is not the same as knowing. Of course it's up to courts to decide and IANAL.

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

#98

Post by Dah00n » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #6

querez wrote: post #2

I have a newborn at home, and like every other parent, we take thousands of pictures and videos of our newest family member. We took pictures of the very first baby-bath. So now I have pictures of a naked baby on my phone. Does that mean that pictures of my newborn baby will be uploaded to Apple for further analysis, potentially stored for indefinite time, shared with law enforcement?

It's worth reading this, which is basically the only good reporting I've seen on this topic: https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initia... There are legitimate things to be concerned about, but 99% of internet discussion on this topic is junk.

Yes but so is much in that link or at least it is very biased. This one is far better:

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...

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

#99

Post by shapefrog » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #33

echelon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gruber practically (no, perhaps actually ) worships Apple. He'd welcome Big Brother into his house if it came with an Apple logo, and he'd tell us how we were all wrong for distrusting it. He's not the voice to listen to this time, and you should trust him to have your best interests at heart. People are furious with Apple, and there's no reason to discount the completely legitimate concerns they have. This is a slip…

> Gruber practically (no, perhaps actually) worships Apple. He'd welcome Big Brother into his house if it came with an Apple logo, and he'd tell us how we were all wrong for distrusting it. You mean the same Gruber who described the situation as “justifiably, receiving intense scrutiny from privacy advocates.”? The one who said “this slippery-slope argument is a legitimate concern”? I'm having a hard time reconciling…

If icloud backup works as advertised - it backs up your device.

However, if we consider the slipery slope, under pressure from a shaddow government, the contents of your phone could have been uploaded to the CIA every day, including live recordings 24 hours a day.

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

#100

Post by Dah00n » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

samename wrote: post #8

querez wrote: post #2

I have a newborn at home, and like every other parent, we take thousands of pictures and videos of our newest family member. We took pictures of the very first baby-bath. So now I have pictures of a naked baby on my phone. Does that mean that pictures of my newborn baby will be uploaded to Apple for further analysis, potentially stored for indefinite time, shared with law enforcement?

Unless those pictures are also in the NCMEC database, there won’t be a match.* * As addressed in the comments below, this isn’t entirely true: the hash looks for visually similar picture and there may be false positives.

That is not true. If you read what experts who actually do something to stop CP (unlike Apple) say there are proven false positives.

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...