[HN Gopher] Apple's child protection features spark concern with...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own
ranks -sources
Author : spenvo
Score : 94 points
Date : 2021-08-12 22:26 UTC (33 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| justinzollars wrote:
| I have advice for Apple employees. Think Different.
|
| You've become Microsoft. I might as well buy a facebook phone.
| akersten wrote:
| As it should be sparked! Apple is asking its engineers to create
| spyware and deploy it on millions of devices. "Concern" is
| underselling my feelings right now.
| Overton-Window wrote:
| Further, every single line of code attributable to a specific
| Apple engineer. The next Nuremberg trials will be much more
| efficient.
| ahnick wrote:
| How is Apple's CSAM implementation not a violation of the fourth
| amendment?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Apple isn't the government.
| ahnick wrote:
| They are acting on behalf of the government.
| justinzollars wrote:
| We don't have any direct evidence of this, or any way of
| proving this, but it is suspicious
| justinzollars wrote:
| Why did Apple invest so much engineering effort, into
| something so complex, without being told to do so? This move
| doesn't benefit their brand, or the year of advertising they
| have done to differentiate themselves with Google and
| facebook as a privacy focused company.
| righttoolforjob wrote:
| This is the ultimate lock-in strategy. If you switch from iPhone
| now, everyone will suspect you of being a pedo and you'll have to
| endure the social consequences.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I want to own the devices I buy, hardware and software. Apple has
| no business doing what is the role of a state.
|
| I, quite simply, don't trust them.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| On the contrary, it would be weird if everyone inside unanimously
| agreed.
| karakot wrote:
| The damage is already done.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Don't use cloud services or closed-source services if you want
| your stuff to be safe and you want your privacy to be maintained.
| geofft wrote:
| Er, do you have a recommendation for non-cloud services that
| provide me with automatic backups of everything I do if
| something happens to my apartment, or open-source services that
| are free of all security flaws allowing hackers to compromise
| your privacy?
|
| Like I wholeheartedly get where you're coming from, but I'm not
| sure what realistic alternatives look like.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Use a photo client on an android phone, encrypt the photos
| and use NextCloud (self-hosted). Make sure your certificates
| are up-to-date. Reverse this process on another client to see
| the photos.
| geofft wrote:
| What sort of Android? Normal Google-provided Android, which
| contains closed-source components? Or do you have an open-
| source alternative in mind?
|
| Where do I self-host NextCloud?
| endisneigh wrote:
| you can self-host NextCloud on your laptop or desktop.
|
| you can use whichever flavor of Android you'd like - a
| lot of people like GrapheneOS
| jonplackett wrote:
| In their attempt to make this extra private by scanning 'on
| device', I think they've managed to make it feel worse.
|
| If they scan my iCloud photos in iCloud, well lots of companies
| scan stuff when you upload it. It's on their servers, they're
| responsible for it. They don't want to be hosting CSAM.
|
| It feels much worse them turning your own, trusty iPhone against
| you.
|
| I know that isn't how you should look at it, but that's still how
| it feels.
| nottorp wrote:
| That _is_ how you should look at it.
|
| They have no business scanning the phones for anything, period.
|
| I'll refer you to the poem beginning with "First they came for
| the Jews...".
| hamburgerwah wrote:
| Also if yo remotely think the scanning is going to stop at CSAM
| I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you. Copyrighted material,
| national security, thought crime will be right be this trojan
| horse if they aren't already baked in.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| The difference is that with on-device scanning, it's suddenly
| just a few bits away from scanning _all_ your photos instead of
| just the ones that will be uploaded to iCloud. If the scanning
| is done server-side, the separation is very clear; what 's on
| Apple's server can be scanned, what's only on my phone, can't.
| travoc wrote:
| Can someone explain how Apple being coaxed or coerced into
| searching all of our personal devices for illegal files by
| federal law enforcement is not an unconstitutional warrantless
| search?
| michaelbjames wrote:
| As I understand, they're acting as an agent of the government,
| it's a private company. So, the 4th amendment protecting
| against unreasonable searches _by the government_ does not
| apply.
| himaraya wrote:
| No, the Fourth Amendment applies to private actors acting on
| behalf of the government.
| syshum wrote:
| Acting as a agent, used to anyway, mean the 4th amendment
| attached to the company
|
| if they WERE NOT acting as an agent then the 4th would not
| apply. I think they way they get around that is not do not
| report to the FBI but instead to NCMEC a "non-profit"
| ahnick wrote:
| who in turn reports to the government?
| mc32 wrote:
| It's that third party doctrine that is so convenient when
| acquiring information otherwise requiring a warrant to
| obtain.
| slapfrog wrote:
| Why stop there? Instead of getting pesky warrants to search
| apartments, the government could just contract the landlord
| to do the search for them. After all, the landlord owns the
| property and ownership trumps every other consideration in
| libertarian fantasy-land.
| syshum wrote:
| Because for the last at least 80 years the constitution as not
| been seen as a document limiting government power, but instead
| as a document limiting the peoples rights
|
| it has literally been inverted from it original purpose
| derwiki wrote:
| IANAL but I presume I consented to this in their EULA.
| ahnick wrote:
| A EULA cannot force you to give up your constitutional
| rights.
| tartoran wrote:
| They're not coaxed nor coerced
| paulie4542 wrote:
| No reasonable company would do something unreasonable as this
| without being pressured.
| mc32 wrote:
| Probably the same way people say that when Twitter moderates
| speech on their platform it's not censorship.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| And it's not censorship when HN bans some posts.
| Componica wrote:
| It's most likely a demand by China so that they can create an
| infrastructure to locate political dissidents. Oh look, a
| Winnie the Pooh Xi meme ended up in your gallery/inbox. Why is
| there a knock at the door? I'm pretty sure thats the real
| reason.
| endisneigh wrote:
| what's this take based on?
| kurofune wrote:
| Racism and ignorance.
| someperson wrote:
| I don't know about the suggestion that it's the government
| of China pushing for the feature itself, but the fact the
| feature now exists and WILL be used by authoritarian
| regimes is clearly understood by Apple employees. From the
| article:
|
| > Apple employees have flooded an Apple internal Slack
| channel with more than 800 messages on the plan announced a
| week ago, workers who asked not to be identified told
| Reuters. Many expressed worries that the feature could be
| exploited by repressive governments looking to find other
| material for censorship or arrests, according to workers
| who saw the days-long thread.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Technically it's not apple searching, it's your phone searching
| itself. Sadly, they'll probably put it somewhere on page 89 of
| their ToS.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| National Security Letters for example. They wouldn't even be
| allowed to talk about it.
| gbrown wrote:
| Simple - our laws haven't evolved with technology. That's why
| your mail has about a million times more protection than your
| email.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-12 23:00 UTC)