Apple is (going to) scan your Apple devices

[IkeaGnome]

2 minutes ago, linux fanboy said:

If they scan things as they said they would wouldn't it significantly degrade the performance of something like Apple watch.

I haven't once mentioned a hit in performance though. Did you mean to quote someone else?

[Zodiark1593]

46 minutes ago, linux fanboy said:

If they scan things as they said they would wouldn't it significantly degrade the performance of something like Apple watch.

 

It's the same thing with Windows Defender but way more controversial in my opinion. It is for a good cause but has some huge drawbacks in performance. And I also question the usefulness since the database or AI would be able to see that picture does it mean that it is not end to end encrypted ?

 

 

Apple devices since the iPhone 8/X have had hardware based AI acceleration. It’s unlikely that the performance or battery life hit will be meaningful. 
 

From what I understand and guess, the photo to be uploaded is copied in a decrypted form in main memory, scanned, then uploaded. I don’t think Apple would store unencrypted photos in storage. 

[saltycaramel]

9 hours ago, linux fanboy said:

But they have to compare it to the data base plus that doesn't mean Apple will be able to store that data later for other 'noble' purposes. And it uses your device performance.

The hash database is downloaded locally on your device in advance.

The device performance usage is moot, c’mon, probably won’t make the neural engine sweat. And they will ask for your consent come this Fall. 

What “data”? This is just a “glorified EXIF” tag saying “CP or not”.

[Mling]

im ok with this as long as there is competition not doing this. Some consumers would want this, and those that want it should get it.

[saltycaramel]

15 minutes ago, Mling said:

im ok with this as long as there is competition not doing this. Some consumers would want this, and those that want it should get it.

Even Apple users could opt out of this by disabling iCloud Photos. (photos would still be backed up in the iCloud Backup, like we all used to do before iCloud Photo Library was introduced)

 

The competition is definitely looking for and taking down CP server-side..

[Mling]

15 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

Even Apple users could opt out of this by disabling iCloud Photos. (photos would still be backed up in the iCloud Backup, like we all used to do before iCloud Photo Library was introduced)

 

The competition is definitely looking for and taking down CP server-side..

I remember when ISIS beheading videos were the cause of current social media censorship. No one wanted to watch that sh*t. No one wants CP either. But then no one also wants corporate control over content. I do not know what the answer is. I just hope smart people keep popping up out of no where to show us the way. #freeassange

[Wh0_Am_1]

My response to Apple.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Mling said:

I remember when ISIS beheading videos were the cause of current social media censorship. No one wanted to watch that sh*t. No one wants CP either. But then no one also wants corporate control over content. I do not know what the answer is. I just hope smart people keep popping up out of no where to show us the way. #freeassange

The problem tends to be that tools used to "protect the kids" turns in to "nannystate" pretty darn quick.

 

To a certain extent, nannystate actions are required by the state when people are too immature (even as adults) to control their own behaviors. Stuff that people would have been thrown in jail or an insane asylum for in as late as the 70's. However the argument tends to be that "adults are mature enough to handle everything thrown at them", but why should we have to exhaust our metal facilities seeing violent, abusive, degrading, and harassing behavior? One might go "well stop using the internet", but the internet is too much a part of our lives now, where that content is more likely to show up by accident the further you step outside a walled garden.

 

Yet, if all someone ever sees is the blank walls of their walled garden, they will seek other stuff. Even if it's potentially mentally damaging.

 

Nobody can go "oh I totally understand why X person seeks out Y content", because everyone is different. Like look at the kinds of behaviors people have every time a new game comes out and suddenly the individual developers in the credits get harassed for things they are not responsible for, and then get harassed off the platform they had for their fans. Nobody should have to put up with that abuse, and if that means taking trolls and people who can't control their violent inhibitions access away, we are all better for it.

[Commodus]

5 hours ago, Mling said:

im ok with this as long as there is competition not doing this. Some consumers would want this, and those that want it should get it.

The kicker is that the people using this as an excuse to slam Apple are running into the arms of Google, a company that has been using CSAM hashes to scan photos on its cloud services for over a decade and likely wouldn't hesitate to do what Apple's doing with Android phones. And it's not guaranteed to be as respectful of privacy.

[Totallycasual]

Not sure how i feel about this, on one hand, if it saved one kid from a bad situation it would be worth it, i just can't help but wonder about the false positives and how much power we'd be putting into the hands of AI.  Like, my friend sent me a bunch of pics of her and her infant daughter, some of them the child is just in a diaper, i just wonder where does an AI decide where the line is between a perfectly innocent image and one that crosses a line.  We need to tread very carefully i think. 

[saltycaramel]

25 minutes ago, Totallycasual said:

Not sure how i feel about this, on one hand, if it saved one kid from a bad situation it would be worth it, i just can't help but wonder about the false positives and how much power we'd be putting into the hands of AI.  Like, my friend sent me a bunch of pics of her and her infant daughter, some of them the child is just in a diaper, i just wonder where does an AI decide where the line is between a perfectly innocent image and one that crosses a line.  We need to tread very carefully i think. 

 

What you’re describing is how the system works if the sender or the recipient are 12 or younger, and even then it’s opt-in. 

 

For adult to adult communication, you can send undressed babies pics all day as long as they’re not well known child p0rn from the NCMEC repository. No “new” CP will be discovered, only old well known certified CP.

Also, it’s not enough to receive the pics in the iMessage chat, you’d need to actively save them to your camera roll and hence upload to iCloud Photos (they are checked just before being uploaded to iCloud Photos).

 

Apple should have announced these 2 different features at different times…lots of people and media are conflating them..

[Bombastinator]

40 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

What you’re describing is how the system works if the sender or the recipient are 12 or younger, and even then it’s opt-in. 

 

For adult to adult communication, you can send undressed babies pics all day as long as they’re not well known child p0rn from the NCMEC repository. No “new” CP will be discovered, only old well known certified CP.

Also, it’s not enough to receive the pics in the iMessage chat, you’d need to actively save them to your camera roll and hence upload to iCloud Photos (they are checked just before being uploaded to iCloud Photos).

 

Apple should have announced these 2 different features at different times…lots of people and media are conflating them..

The “we don’t want anything to do with having to dig material out of iCloud for prosecutors or worse getting tagged for it” makes a certain amount of sense from a corporate point of view. Caring about whether kids are exploited or not is not something any corporation would normally do so there are laws to help them.  Which may be what this is intended to do I think.  There seems to be possible unintended future ramifications though.  This may need to be more carefully approached from that end. 

[Vishera]

Just like how the KGB and Securitate  completely disregarded privacy for the sake of security,

Agents disguise themselves as civilians and spy on everyone,if you say or do anything suspicious they will arrest and interrogate you.

You live in a constant fear,limiting what you say and do - oppressing you in the process.

 

Also there is this:

When i was 13 i took nude selfshots of myself (I have never shared them with anyone,I eventually deleted them)

Imagine what would happen in cases like this? - Their nudes will be sent to Apple violating their privacy.

And think about adults that still have nude photos of themselves from the years they were underage.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

Just like how the KGB and Securitate  completely disregarded privacy for the sake of security,

Agents disguise themselves as civilians and spy on everyone,if you say or do anything suspicious they will arrest and interrogateate you.

My memory of the way the KGB recruited was they would catch someone doing something and then force them into the KGB so it was sort of citezens spying on each other, and “I am KGBl” kind of meant “I was caught by the KGB once.”

[freeagent]

Just keep clean and keep on keepin on and you will have nothing to worry about. If you have stuff to hide I'm sure "they" already know what your into and will be dealt with appropriately when the time is right.

[saltycaramel]

19 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Also there is this:

When i was 13 i took nude selfshots of myself (I have never shared them with anyone,I eventually deleted them)

Imagine what would happen in cases like this? - Their nudes will be sent to Apple violating their privacy.

 

nope nope nope

 

Your pics are not in the NCMEC kiddie p0rn repository.

 

They wouldn’t be flagged by Apple.

 

Now, if you sent them to a kid under the age of 12, his/her parents would be notified. (Apple would not be involved, it’s all between the kid and his/her parents).

 

Only problem I see is that that kid parents would now have your naked pics. Basically don’t send nudes to a kid 12 or younger or you must take into account the fact his parents could see them. Doesn’t sound super unfair or unreasonable. I would maybe lower the age one year to 11 or younger to protect young LGBTQ kids from being exposed to their parents in a traumatic way. 

[Vishera]

4 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

They wouldn’t be flagged by Apple.

 

Why?,I was 13 - a kid at the time.

Why wouldn't it be flagged as child pornography by Apple?

 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, Vishera said:

Why?,I was 13 - a kid at the time.

Why wouldn't it be flagged as child pornography by Apple?

 

If it’s not in the repository it doesn’t get flagged I understand. If your image is in the repository then maybe.

[Vishera]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

If it’s not in the repository it doesn’t get flagged I understand. If your image is in the repository then maybe.

I have never shared them with anyone,and eventually deleted them so they are not in that repository.

[saltycaramel]

12 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Why?,I was 13 - a kid at the time.

Why wouldn't it be flagged as child pornography by Apple?

 

Because Apple’s system doesn’t look at the pics CONTENT.

 

It compares hashes to the hashes of a repository of known CP (mantained by a US govt funded agency called NCMEC).

 

It’s like reading only the odd letters of your surname vs looking at a full picture of you.

 

Apple smells your pics while blindfolded, just before they are uploaded to iCloud where they will sit encrypted (most of the time). 

 

It only checks if they smell like turd. They don’t look at the content. 

 

Now, the above is about the general iCloud Photo CSAM-detection system. 

 

There’s another system that ACTUALLY looks at the content via AI, but it only applies to kids 12 or younger with a Family-managed iCloud account and only if their as*hole parents decided to activate this particular parental lock system. 

 

[saltycaramel]

The optimistic hypothesis that would get us MORE privacy out of this.

[Wh0_Am_1]

Honestly I find this rather alarming, I mean sure such the primary intention may not be sinister. But this sounds like salami tactics being wielded at our privacy, this comes only a month after it came out that the American Biden Administration may have potentially gone to the cell phone carriers in order to get them to censor "Coronavirus misinformation" in text messages. In a quote from Politico

Quote

"Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages"

Now this is far from proven, but should not be discarded until more data is unearthed. (an opinion article from Fox on the topic if you wish to dive deeper.)

Also this is as well happening a month after it comes to light that the White House may be flagging posts for Facebook about "Coronavirus misinformation" (another article from NYP rather than the WSJ)

Now my point is that one must be vigilant due to the fact that if these are indeed true these mechanisms and precedent could easily be used for corrupt means.

Now it is not my intention to start a battle about politics, I just wish to point out that there may be some really sketchy things that may potentially be going on, and thereby demand some attention because freedom falls in ignorance.

[Bombastinator]

-deleted-  tech site. Sort of about tech but not enough.

[saltycaramel]

New FAQ from Apple

 

https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_for_Children_Frequently_Asked_Questions.pdf

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

New FAQ from Apple

 

https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_for_Children_Frequently_Asked_Questions.pdf

The answers to questions 4 and 5 seem like hedging and assumptions about what Apple will or will not be able to forsee or resist.   I am not reassured there.  Others not so much.  4 for 6 isn’t awful, but it may not be enough.