this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
1833 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
2559 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irkli@lemmy.world 209 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I wonder how many complaining here actually read even this bland and uninformative article.

At issue I believe (because it is not stated, but discussed elsewhere in better venues) is that UK wants to be able to see inside encrypted comms and files, under the guise of CSAM detection. Apple is right to oppose it.

Arguments based on hypocrisy real or perceived in other venues (china) has nothing to do with this decision its just piss-taking. Give it a rest.

[–] Misconduct@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Other than their asinine charging cable/accessory situations I consistently find myself agreeing with Apple pretty much any time any government body or group is mad they won't do something.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

They're generally on the wrong side of the battle for right to repair and removable batteries too.

But yeah, privacy they almost always have the right of it.

[–] TwanHE@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Requiring usb c was something I agreed with. But indeed many times apple has rightly fought for their userbase.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

how do you reckon?

only time they have been on the consumer's side was with regards to privacy, refusing to comply with the FBI and now this.

everything else they are pretty anti-consumer, off the top of my head

  • first to remove jack 3.5 (even though I don't really care about this, others do.)
  • sticking to shitty lightning cable so they can sell overpriced cables
  • the charger thing with the EU
  • worst of all entirely against right to repair
[–] Perhyte@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

To be fair, those first three points fall squarely under that "charging cable/accessory situations" exception. With Apple, it turns out that's a pretty broad exception.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Remember how everyone kicked up a giant stink about apple adding "on device CSAM scanning when uploading photos to iCloud"?

They did that precisely because it would allow them to search for CSAM without giving up any privacy. As I said back when all that rage was happening, if apple don't get to implement it this way you can be damn sure that the government is going to force them to implement CSAM scanning in a much more privacy-destroying way, and well here we are.

[–] nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

CSAM without giving up any privacy.

Hmmmm funny because security researchers said the opposite, I kinda believe them more?

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who said it was givening up privacy. The worst I heard is slippery slope of they donthis they might ad more to it later. And how was it privacy compromising?

[–] 4AV@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And how was it privacy compromising?

  1. Anything could be added to the hashes with the user having no way to know what's being searched for beyond "trust us". This could be partially alleviated if, for example, the hash had to be signed by organizations in a combination of states that'd make it difficult to push through hashes for anything other actual CSAM (so not just Five Eyes)

  2. Adversarial examples to intentionally set off the filter were demonstrated to be possible. Apple made it clear that there are types of content they'd be legally obligated to report once they became aware of, and it'd be well within a government agency's capabilities to honeypot, say initially, terrorist recruitment material

  3. Coincidental false positives are also entirely possible (ImageNet had some naturally occuring clashes) and can result in their employees seeing your sensitive photographs

  4. The user's device acting against the user cements other user-hostile and privacy-hostile behavior. "People could circumvent the CSAM scan" would be given as another reason against right to repair and ability to see/modify the software your own device is running

  5. Tech companies erode privacy by flip-flopping between "sure we're giving ourselves abusable power, but we'll stand up to governments pressuring us to expand this" and then "well what were we supposed to do, leave the market?" when they inevitably concede

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What's anything? They are not looking for any CSAM pictures they are looking for specific ones that are in a database. Its not like they can create a hash for a guy letting his dog on a horse and find all those pictures.

[–] 4AV@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

they are looking for specific ones that are in a database

They could be looking for any images without your knowing - there's no guarantee that those images came from a CSAM database.

Its not like they can create a hash for a guy letting his dog on a horse

They could trivially create a hash for a picture of a guy letting his dog on a horse (which would also include other very similar images).

I didn't necessarily mean to claim that they can scan for a concept lacking a fixed image, if that's what you're saying. That would theoretically be possible with enough hashes, but impractical.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

How did they say it’s giving up privacy?

[–] Proweruser@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like the politicians would have cared. This is just a convenient excuse. Either they would have found another one or they would have said "we can't trust Apple to scan for this material. The police has to do these scans!"

We were right to oppose it then and we are right to oppose it now.

[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CSAM, as defined by apple, SPOILER that could be anything, including, and I could rattle off names, anything that threatens the government or those who got their tendrils into it, if we, For example have authoritarians change us to be facist, or re-introduce slavery or segrogation. A mere picture of your bedroom or face could have a somthing in it that allows you to be put into a cohort for later use (legal or not)

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, that's not at all what it was defined as or what it could be. CSAM is Child Sex Abuse Material. It wasn't going to be memes of winny the pooh like people argued.

That's also not how CSAM matching works. It simply compares hashes of images. If you take a photo of you in your bedroom with a sign saying "fuck the government" it will not match any CSAM database hashes no matter how authoritarian or fascist the government is, because they don't have that same photo in their CSAM databases.

You're doing what the outraged did back then and thinking CSAM scanning is some sort of AI powered image recognition that scans images for specific things. It's not that at all. It is a database of known CSAM images that have been hashed and that have been confirmed by multiple different governments (multiple different ones so one government can't just put an image of their president that they don't like in theirs and then find out who has uploaded that photo. If it only appears in one government CSAM database it will not be checked). It takes your photo, hashes it, and then checks to see if that hash is in the CSAM database. It won't be, ever.

You know what will be in there and matched? If you download child porn that is already out there on the web.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You're naive if you think that is all it will ever be, and that there will never be scope creep, especially malicious scope creep that turns into overreach

[–] bigdog_00@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anything scanning messages or media on my device is an absolute NO if I don't control it.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

You did control it though. It only scanned what you were uploading to iCloud, and only during the upload process.

If you turned off iCloud upload it never scanned anything.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so basically apple doesn't want government spyware on their phones

[–] JshKlsn@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly! Apple wants to make sure the personal data they hand out is directly from them.