[HN Gopher] WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Ap...
___________________________________________________________________
WhatsApp lead and other tech experts fire back at Apple's Child
Safety plan
Author : timurtime
Score : 444 points
Date : 2021-08-09 08:18 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| fattybob wrote:
| Seems to me a lot of noise about Apple joining all the other
| services in meeting US regulations, aren't all major vendors
| equally compliant, maybe more invasively so!
| endisneigh wrote:
| What are people switching too that is not susceptible to the same
| thing?
| bdibs wrote:
| I'm considering a switch to GrapheneOS on a Pixel. I'm not sure
| if it's an overreaction but I feel like I've lost what little
| trust I had remaining in Apple. It's really unfortunate as they
| make quality products, but I guess everything sours eventually.
| PolCPP wrote:
| Why Graphene instead of Calyx? The later seems to be more
| user friendly (asking because i'm looking into it)
| bdibs wrote:
| My (limited) understanding so far is that Calyx is a
| "looser" Graphene security wise to make it a bit more user
| friendly, I'm wanting to just jump in with both feet. I
| don't use a ton of apps anyways so I don't think I'll be
| missing anything.
| [deleted]
| ashildr wrote:
| "other tech experts" want to keep Apple from using End2End
| encryption so they have a reason why they don't provide it to
| their customers. With Apple's approach Apple can only decrypt
| Data hosted with them if the (false) positives are over a
| threshold. It's a pretty neat way to implement a usecase so
| deeply wrong. All other companies protesting now want to keep
| access to userdata in the clear.
|
| Apple's approach is the only way to - at the same time - act
| lawfully regarding to EARN-IT act in the US and provide E2E in
| iCloud.
|
| I really hate these laws, but Apple is not the problem here. Read
| up on EARNIT and the EU laws currently in the works. All
| communication WILL HAVE TO BE SCANNED by the provider. Beating
| the drum against Apple will just lead to E2E encryption being
| forbidden. What needs to be forbidden instead is any access to
| communication.
|
| https://www.apple.com/child-safety/
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EARN_IT_Act_of_2020
| https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Earn-IT is proposed legislation, not law. It has no power.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| I had heard that WhatsApp and many other such products have been
| doing this, in a more unfettered way, for a decade?
| pyaamb wrote:
| does anyone know if there has been studies showing rise in child
| sexual exploitation that would warrant something so drastic? I
| would have imagined it would be lower as society progresses but i
| do not know. I dont see enough people asking if giving up our
| personal privacy is really warranted or if we are being mislead.
| People should be asking for hard proof.
| jgaa wrote:
| Child porn was, as far as I remember, made illegal because 2
| million children was used in it's production. Now that number
| is 5 million.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Is that five million a year, or five million total, including
| the original two million? This isn't saying anything about
| whether more children are being abused now.
|
| Given how ubiquitous cameras are, I can fully imagine more
| pictures being taken, though.
| jgaa wrote:
| It's just a number taken out of thin air, just like the
| original 2 million.
| system2 wrote:
| Isn't WhatsApp part of Facebook? Why is it being separated as
| WhatsApp?
| deaddodo wrote:
| Because Will Cathcart is the lead of WhatsApp, not Facebook. As
| is mentioned clearly in the title. It's not like they are
| hiding the association as his quote is immediately followed up
| by:
|
| > WhatsApp's owner, Facebook, has reasons to pounce on Apple
| for privacy concerns.
| wesleywt wrote:
| To be fair. Apple is opening up the door to allow Facebook to
| pounce.
| padolsey wrote:
| Likely relevant as WhatsApp does not always see eye-to-eye with
| mother FB, notably on privacy issues. Source: used to work
| there.
| kfprt wrote:
| 'Child Safety' is extremely disingenuous. Their 'plan' provides
| no benefit to the safety of children and only strips users of
| their remaining shred of privacy. Authorities care more about
| stopping images than actual children currently being abused (lack
| of investigation into Sophie Long allegations). Of course this is
| because 'child safety' is merely a smokescreen for
| authoritarianism and tyranny. Just like China.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| "The state must declare the child to be the most precious
| treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived
| as working for the benefit of the children, the people will
| happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any
| deprivation." --Adolf Hitler
| HNisBaizuo wrote:
| Wait until you learn about how disingenuous using big tech to
| "fight Nazis" was
| myspy wrote:
| What is striking is that a lot of misinformation is spreading
| around. How it works, what is behind it, what the alternatives
| could be, and especially what problem it tries to solve.
|
| This tweet here gives interesting options to learn more about it
| https://twitter.com/yoyoel/status/1424154582372872192?s=20
|
| I have no imagination of the suffering of the kids behind it and
| it's definitely good that we fight it. But why not for older
| kids?
|
| Apparently this is already happening on all major platforms in
| the moment. Apples implementation is the most privacy friendly
| one, or isn't it?
| strzibny wrote:
| It isn't. It's the worst one.
| EtienneK wrote:
| Please elaborate. If as others have stated that this will
| enable E2E encryption in the cloud, then it very well might
| be?
| elzbardico wrote:
| This applies only to photos that are uploaded to iCloud. Apple is
| doing to do the processing on the device though, but only for the
| photos that are going to be uploaded to iCloud. Like other
| services do. WhatsApp is a Facebook property and decided to use
| this confusion to hit Apple politically with a low punch. People
| that should know better prove once again that most people read no
| much than the headlines and base their conclusions on the
| tastiest sound bytes they hear.
| BatteryMountain wrote:
| Facebook still sour about Apple blocking tracking mechanisms,
| hence the low punch?
| bitcurious wrote:
| That's like building a tank and saying it'll only be used for
| deliveries. Once the infrastructure is in place on every device
| to detect arbitrary images/messages on the device the switch
| _will_ be flipped.
| charcircuit wrote:
| The infrastructure for detecting files does not need to be
| that complex. We are talking something a single engineer can
| do in less than an hour.
| elzbardico wrote:
| iOS is not open source, so, Apple could just deliver the spy
| payload with another update and probably nobody would ever
| know if that was the intention. The slippery slope argument
| simply don't make much sense here (as usual, btw)
| pnt12 wrote:
| You can keep that secret until someone goes to court or has
| police raid their house over photos that were supposedly
| end to end encrypted.
|
| Like whatsapp saying their chat is encrypted, is it really?
| Well, Facebook is trying really hard to losen this up, why
| don't they just release an update sending them the keys?
| siscia wrote:
| So I was ignorant on the issue and completely against the
| approach of Apple.
|
| Then HN taught me that any company storing images on their
| infrastructure in the US must report pedophilic images to the US
| government.
|
| At this point, the approach taken by Apple seems like the best
| one to me, if you don't want to store pictures in clear on your
| servers.
|
| What other technical approach are people advocating for?
|
| Another point it is to try to change the law, but this is beyond
| the scope of the conversation.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Because once that functionality is there it affects everyone,
| not just in the US. And it basically means we sell out our
| democratic principles, or rather allow our tech giants to sell
| it out. Or force them to do it, like our elected governments
| doing it. Either way, I don't like the outcome.
| zepto wrote:
| > Because once that functionality is there it affects
| everyone, not just in the US.
|
| The functionality to detect CSAM uploaded to Apple's servers
| or sent to pre-teens?
|
| > And it basically means we sell out our democratic
| principles
|
| What democratic principle is being sold out?
| hef19898 wrote:
| The right to secret communication. The right of not being
| under surveillance. The government cannot open letters
| without a warrant, but somehow Apple, Google, MS and co can
| sniff through electronic communication as they see fit
| because of a clause in an EULA. No idea how came there, but
| maybe the days when Stasi surveillance was the poster child
| of government intrusion into private life are too long gone
| to be remembered. Or they aren't and certain people choose
| to make shit load of money from the thing.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Might as well make it legal for police to search our
| houses at will, as long as they are looking for child
| abuse images. Doesn't sound much like the US any more at
| that point.
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple, ... can sniff through electronic communication
| as they see fit
|
| Except that they can't and don't.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Google is checking, apparently, Gmail for cp. Apple is
| doing it, soon, on your phone. Checking your mail for
| analog cp requires a warrant and can only be done by
| police. See the difference?
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple is doing it, soon, on your phone.
|
| Apple is only checking images you choose to upload to
| iCloud photos to see if you are uploading a collection of
| CSAM. _This is entirely optional, and they have publicly
| explained what they are doing._
|
| They are not sniffing through your communications as they
| see fit.
| hef19898 wrote:
| One last try, after that I'll stop since you are all over
| these submissions defending Apple here.
|
| Take traditional mail. That is not opened, it is,
| usually, not read. Nor is content checked. It can, and
| is, opened in case of warrants (let's ignore totalitarian
| regimes here). What Google is doing when it comes to
| photos, as was Apple before, is opening every envelope
| containing photos to check wether or not it was CP.
| Already bad enough because they still opened your mail.
| You could avoid that by just using another mail carrier,
| so.
|
| What Apple is doing now is checking you photos before you
| put them in the envelope. In case they find too many
| stuff they don't like they open all your other photo
| albums. And they tell authorities. Without any means for
| you to prevent that. It's like the postal service looking
| at your mail before they pick it up.
|
| All that without oversight by courts. Without proper
| legal and investigative proceedings. Heck, even without
| any law, currently, forcing them to do that.
|
| The more recent incidents where that or similar things
| happened were:
|
| - the USSR
|
| - the DDR with the Stasi
|
| - Nazi Germany
|
| - Western allies during WW2 through dedicated censorship
| bureaus
|
| All of those were historically deemed unacceptable, maybe
| necessary for the greater good so. Now a private entity,
| with a global reach, does the same thing in principle.
| Even with the technical capabilities to do it on a much
| larger scale, and more thoroughly. And because of Apple
| being private is, for some reason, ok for you.
|
| Not sure if further discussion woth you has a point, I'll
| just leave it at that.
| zepto wrote:
| > One last try, after that I'll stop since you are all
| over these submissions defending Apple here.
|
| Ad hominem is bad faith. It's usually a sign that you
| know your arguments don't hold up.
|
| > What Apple is doing now is checking you photos before
| you put them in the envelope.
|
| No, an 'envelope' is a totally misleading analogy. This
| has nothing to do with sending messages.
|
| If you want an analogy try this one: Apple provides a
| warehouse for people who want to store copies of their
| precious photos. They give you a copier to make copies of
| your photos, you give them the copies, and they file
| them.
|
| Because they don't want a vault full of child porn, then
| equip the copier with a scanner to detect known child
| porn while it makes the copy.
|
| That is _all_ that is happening here. No sniffing through
| communications as they see fit, only a way to prevent you
| from uploading child porn to their service.
|
| Anyone saying otherwise simply isn't being truthful.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| > The government cannot open letters without a warrant,
| but somehow Apple, Google, MS and co can sniff through
| electronic communication
|
| This is no different than a private doctor testing for
| illicit drugs and reporting results to the DEA (they
| literally do this for ADHD patients.)
| pseudalopex wrote:
| I know American ADHD patients. None of them take drug
| tests.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > Then HN taught me that any company storing images on their
| infrastructure in the US must report pedophilic images to the
| US government.
|
| It's certainly been going on for the past decade.
|
| For example:
|
| >a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after
| Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the
| Houston suspect's Gmail account
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le...
| tyingq wrote:
| >if you don't want to store pictures in clear on your servers
|
| Reading https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 , it seems
| that Apple may encrypt pictures on their servers, but they have
| the key. The list of what's actually end-to-end encrypted
| doesn't include photos. So, they may be scanning on your phone,
| but they can scan on their servers if they wanted to.
| siscia wrote:
| I believe the want this update exactly to enable E2E
| encryption.
|
| In this way the can get rid of the keys on their servers and
| still find pedo pictures.
| starfallg wrote:
| >What other technical approach are people advocating for?
|
| Reduce user data stored in cloud data centres as much as
| possible. This is the approach taken by Whatsapp, so not
| surprised they are the ones most vocal against it.
|
| And at the risk of appearing to be supportive of a Facebook
| product, I think this is the right way to take computing. We
| don't need a central place to put stuff or to do compute when
| we can do it on our own devices. We just need orchestration.
| asutekku wrote:
| How would you do it? With whatsapp you have the file on
| messaging partner's phone. People do not want to share their
| images over a peer network with random people.
| nicce wrote:
| It is a bit ironical that WhatsApp is worried about privacy.
| All message metadata is unecrypted and part of their business
| model. They don't know about message contents, but they know
| everything about your social network (who do you message and
| when, who are part of your groups etc.) Add cross-app
| tracking with Facebook APIs and soon they can also categorize
| your message contents.
| ryanlol wrote:
| > any company storing images on their infrastructure in the US
| must report pedophilic images to the US government
|
| Ones they know of...
|
| > What other technical approach are people advocating for?
|
| Apple already has a technical solution, encryption.
| ashildr wrote:
| Encryption does not help, Apple still is responsible. If
| Apple intends to let the user store photos in iCloud (or send
| by imessage) encrypted, they either have to keep the keys, so
| they can decrypt and scan the photos or or to keep the user
| from uploading incriminating content. Apple found a third
| way: they will only get to reconstruct the keys if the user
| uploads too many pictures triggering alarms.
| adambatkin wrote:
| Source? I am not aware of a law in the US that requires
| Apple to actively scan images, or to store them unencrypted
| (or keep copies of the keys).
| hef19898 wrote:
| The US aren't the only government with a stake in that.
| And countries like China, Saudi, the Emirates have a lot
| of leverage. Financially and diplomatic. Heck, Facebook
| bowed to Myanmar just to get the users there.
| nicce wrote:
| Every cloud infrastructure holder is required for doing
| that. Closing an eye does not take a duty away. You must
| be actively pursuing that. Encryption would start flood
| of new laws
|
| https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title18/U
| SCO...
| ryanlol wrote:
| Those laws do not exist (yet?). You can't justify this as
| a compliance measure for legislation that does not exist.
| nicce wrote:
| Yes, but current laws also restrict storing images as E2E
| encrypted, so there is dilemma?
| ryanlol wrote:
| Where are you getting this from? That's simply not true.
| It's perfectly legal to "store images as E2E encrypted"
| nicce wrote:
| Encryption itself is not illegal, but it might make
| harder to comply other legal requirements. I have just
| heard this many times, and now I read the whole law
| (curse me). It says on 2258Af part especially that there
| is no requirement to find evidence of CSAM material all
| the time. However, if NCMEC especially shares some
| information about visual depictions and asks to stop
| redistribution, then provider is required to comply in
| some cases. For example if they share hashes and these
| should be stopped. To be able to stop this data, then
| search is required and complying this with E2E encryption
| is not possible.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Please show where those legal requirements have been
| applied to E2E encrypted files.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Tarsnap exists so either it is legal when done right or
| tarsnap is a walking dead and I haven't heard anything to
| that effect from any credible source.
| nicce wrote:
| I guess that service slightly goes out of the scope for
| active scanning, because it is for general backup, not a
| cloud especially for photo sharing and storing.
| skinkestek wrote:
| And that is my point: by tying oneself to the mast,
| denying oneself the access to navigate after the sweet
| sweet sound of user data, it becomes possible to sail
| straight past the sirens.
|
| Today this is less about physically tying management and
| physically putting wax in the crews ears and more about
| technically _and legally_ making oneself unable to touch
| the juicy juicy customer data.
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple already has a technical solution, encryption.
|
| How does encryption help prevent porn being sent to pre-
| teens?
| ryanlol wrote:
| That's a completely different feature than the one we're
| discussing. These things were announced together, but they
| are not the same.
|
| Nobody is objecting to opt-in clientside content filtering.
| zepto wrote:
| Both of the features involve opt-in client side content
| filtering.
|
| _The only_ objections are to that.
| ryanlol wrote:
| The CSAM scanning is not opt-in.
|
| Sure, you could stop using iCloud. That's opt-out.
| zepto wrote:
| That's not correct. This applies only to iCloud Photo
| Library, not to iCloud as a whole.
|
| iCloud Photo Library is an optional feature, and there
| are numerous alternatives.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Simple.
|
| 1. Encrypt everything.
|
| 2. Don't store images on your servers at all.
|
| There's nothing to report if all you have is some encrypted
| blob. Alternatively, just don't consume any user data at all.
| Data is and should be a massive liability.
| skinkestek wrote:
| > Data is and should be a massive liability.
|
| My thoughs as well.
|
| If you don't want there very dangerous weapon you have
| thought out to be abused, don't create a physical assembly of
| it and don't tell anyone who has a habit of abusing powerful
| weapons.
| PolCPP wrote:
| You could generate hash on device, send it to server alongside
| the file, once validated delete hash or create decoding
| voucher.
| nicce wrote:
| This is exactly what they are doing right now. Decoding
| voucher applies when their system thinks that too many hashes
| goes into CSAM category.
| ianmiers wrote:
| Apple's banned image reporting wont stay iCloud only.iMessage
| is next. Maybe all data on your phone. 1) phone scanning is
| overkill for pics already on their servers. You don't build
| this and take the PR flack for something you can already do
| server side 2) Even if it's somehow not Apple's plan, they will
| be forced to use it on iMessage. Congress has been trying to
| for years.See the EARN IT act[0].
|
| Apple just erroneously said "it's safe" despite the fact that
| it clearly can be abused.
|
| [0] https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2020/03/06/earn-
| it-...
| zepto wrote:
| > You don't build this and take the PR flack for something
| you can already do server side
|
| That's exactly what you do if you plan to enable E2E.
| ianmiers wrote:
| Yep. That certainly is the next step. And then, once you
| are scanning encrypted data, iMessage is next whether you
| want it or not.
| zepto wrote:
| > And then, once you are scanning encrypted data,
|
| They aren't.
|
| > iMessage is next whether you want it or not.
|
| Is there some evidence you have of this plan? Sounds like
| this is just a fear you have.
| ianmiers wrote:
| >Is there some evidence you have of this plan? Sounds
| like this is just a fear you have.
|
| The EARN IT act. It may not be Apple's plan, Apple's
| plan, as you suggest, might only be for doing scanning on
| encrypted iCloud and excluding encrypted iMessage. But
| what Apple will be pushed to do after that is pretty
| clear.
| zepto wrote:
| If the government passes a law mandating that encrypted
| messages be scanned, it won't be done using this CSAM
| mechanism, and it won't only be Apple doing it.
|
| In short, you might be right to be afraid of this
| outcome, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with CSAM
| countermeasures.
| ianmiers wrote:
| Read the article and discussion here
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28118350. It makes
| the point pretty well.
|
| >That, of course, is the rub: Apple controls the
| algorithm, both in terms of what it looks for, what bugs
| it may or may not have, and also the inputs, which in the
| case of CSAM scanning is the database from NCMEC. Apple
| has certainly worked hard to be a company that users
| trust, but we already know that that trust doesn't extend
| everywhere: Apple has, under Chinese government pressure,
| put Chinese user iCloud data on state-owned enterprise
| servers, along with the encryption keys necessary to
| access it. What happens when China announces its version
| of the NCMEC, which not only includes the horrific
| imagery Apple's system is meant to capture, but also
| images and memes the government deems illegal?
|
| >The fundamental issue -- and the first reason why I
| think Apple made a mistake here -- is that there is a
| meaningful difference between capability and policy. One
| of the most powerful arguments in Apple's favor in the
| 2016 San Bernardino case is that the company didn't even
| have the means to break into the iPhone in question, and
| that to build the capability would open the company up to
| a multitude of requests that were far less pressing in
| nature, and weaken the company's ability to stand up to
| foreign governments. In this case, though, Apple is
| building the capability, and the only thing holding the
| company back is policy.
| zepto wrote:
| I've read the article. It changes nothing.
|
| I agree that it could be used to detect image collections
| (and only image collections) that are not porn, that
| users upload to iCloud Photo Library.
|
| That is the only established abuse case. Apple has
| categorically denied that they will comply with it, just
| as they refused to help the FBI in the San Bernardino
| case.
|
| Even if they do end up complying in China because China
| passed a law, authoritarianism in China is a red herring.
| This mechanism is of no consequence to the Chinese
| government.
|
| All of has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that
| 'iMessage is next' and the article doesn't support your
| claim.
| nicce wrote:
| It is not the next step, it is already there, if you read
| the technical papers. Additional encryption level comes
| to iCloud images with this change, and Apple can't see
| your photos anymore unless CSAM threshold is achieved.
| nojito wrote:
| Apple doesn't scan iCloud for CSAM and refuses to do it. Which
| is why they researched intensively on differential privacy.
| sneak wrote:
| But they could, as iCloud Photos is not e2e (Apple can read
| all of it) and they turn over the user data on over 30,000
| users per year to the USG without even a warrant.
|
| This is just farce.
| nojito wrote:
| No they refuse to indiscriminately scan iCloud.
| zepto wrote:
| > But they could, as iCloud Photos is not e2e
|
| Client side scanning is a _prerequsite_ to making it e2e if
| you also want countermeasures against CSAM.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Has Apple said this is what they are going to do, or are
| people just guessing?
| zepto wrote:
| They haven't announced this, but they invest a lot in
| encryption and privacy, and have stated that user privacy
| is a value of theirs. They have also expressed that they
| don't want access to be able to be forced by law
| enforcement.
| sneak wrote:
| Their actions speak louder than their words.
| zepto wrote:
| And their actions show that they aren't likely to do any
| of the scary things they are being accused of.
|
| That's the point - people keep claiming some nefarious
| slippery slope, which is of course in the realm of
| _possibility_ , but is not actually happening.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Apple stores user iCloud backups and their encryption
| keys on Chinese government-controlled servers in China,
| and gives the Chinese government full access to those
| servers. And routinely grants the US government
| warrantless access to those same backups in the US.
|
| So what actions are you referring to that show they _won
| 't_ do any of those scary things?
| zepto wrote:
| Right, so presumably you'd agree that the people who are
| saying that CSAM detection is a problem because China
| might abuse it are just being silly, right?
|
| As for the US government having access to the backups,
| that's required by law.
|
| You can always make the paranoid case that Apple _wants_
| to do this because they are somehow lying about their
| values, or you can make the case that their hand has been
| forced.
|
| You could also note that they promised to implement e2e
| backups but haven't yet, and this is rumored to be
| because the FBI asked them not to.
|
| If you assume that Apple is doing this stuff because they
| want to, then of course you'll see this next move as just
| another bad thing they are doing.
|
| If on the other hand you consider that they don't want to
| do these things but are being forced to until they have a
| better option, then you can look at this move as a way to
| get out of a double bind.
|
| Now they can turn on e2e without being accused of
| creating a safe haven for pedophiles.
|
| Both pathways are plausible, but given the investment in
| privacy Apple has been making and the consistency with
| which they state their values and boundaries, I don't
| think they want to be creating backdoors.
| viktorcode wrote:
| The problem I have with this approach is that it introduces on-
| device scan for images. All what is needed to adopt it to scan
| for different kind of images is to connect it to different
| database, say, Winnie the Pooh memes featuring CCP chairman,
| and boom, jailed dissenters. And ability to scan all images is
| but a minor firmware update away.
|
| Server scanning makes it clear that the company running the
| servers has access to your photos. So you can either find a
| form of encrypted storage, or be okay with that, depending on
| your privacy stance. Having device with ability to scan your
| photos removes that choice. It is a privacy invasion.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > All what is needed to adopt it to scan for different kind
| of images is to connect it to different database, say, Winnie
| the Pooh memes featuring CCP chairman, and boom, jailed
| dissenters.
|
| The CCP have already throughly demonstrated that they don't
| need manufactures consent to build these systems.
|
| Look at the Uyghur population in China. They already have
| their phones scanned on device for dissident material, not by
| coercing manufacturers, but by forcing the population to
| install a surveillance app. Then making it illegal to use a
| phone without it.
|
| Being caught at checkpoint without the app installed and
| working is grounds for immediate arrest and re-education.
| adventured wrote:
| > The CCP have already throughly demonstrated that they
| don't need manufactures consent to build these systems.
|
| It was obviously merely an example for illustration
| purposes by the parent. To get a point across it's often
| very helpful to use a stark, clear example.
|
| Few governments will ever have the extraordinary
| capabilities and resources of the CCP in China.
|
| For the other ~190 governments that will never reach that
| level of capability, what they might have now is a globe-
| spanning billion-device corporation like Apple more willing
| to assist them.
| carom wrote:
| >The problem I have with this approach is that it introduces
| on-device scan for images.
|
| Windows already does this via Windows Defender. This is a
| basic AV functionality and much more privacy preserving.
| DangerousPie wrote:
| But Windows Defender doesn't report you to law enforcement
| when it believes it found a virus.
| nicce wrote:
| How do you know that? It is blackbox paradox, and all we
| have is what they say. They might report CSAM hashes to
| law enforcements. Any file can be a threat, hence images
| are included for scans. Defender also uploads whole files
| as unencrypted if you don't opt-out.
| EveYoung wrote:
| But Apple only plans to scan photos that are synced with
| iCloud, don't they? So you could just switch to an E2E
| encrypted alternative and drop iCloud completely.
| unionpivo wrote:
| Yes but it probably took additional code to only scan
| pictures that are synced to iCloud.
|
| Probably not monumental task, to change to scan every
| picture.
| nicce wrote:
| I have to remind again, that iOS is a blackbox, closed
| source system. All this speculation applies also for a
| moment before they added anything. They might have had
| this code ready for years already. All we have is what
| they say. It is already very trivial to scan everything
| on on your device and send that metadata. Few lines of
| code. At the moment when they say about scanning
| everything in phone publicly without opt-out, then we
| should be worried. Once again, there is no way telling
| what they are doing already.
| unionpivo wrote:
| The difference is now every government knows too.
|
| They can't pretend they don't have the capability.
|
| And if they can scan for CP, why can't they scan for
| "whatever" else instead.
| avianlyric wrote:
| iOS has been running complex Neural Nets on all your
| images for years now. It powers all their social features
| and search.
|
| Apple have always had the capability, and have been
| advertising it as central selling point of new versions
| of iOS for years. That ship sailed along time ago.
| nicce wrote:
| Neural Net might be overkill as an example. Antivirus
| software has existed since 1980s[1].
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| Does an AV report its findings to local govs?
| adventured wrote:
| What changed is Apple just signaled to the governments of
| the world what it's willing to do toward abusing user
| privacy and exactly how it can work. And hey, Apple, if
| you're willing to do that, why not just go a bit further
| and do this, because we're asking you to or else (and now
| we know you're obviously even more morally flexible than
| what you used to present yourself as).
|
| Before that, Apple put up a front that they would fight
| for user privacy at every turn. They pitched that over
| and over and over again as a corporate ethos, a selling
| point. That was the facade at least, even if one is
| cynical and wants to pretend it was a lie. Now they're
| not even presenting the facade, which will open the flood
| gates dramatically. They went from a supposedly resisting
| agent, to a morally gray and willing agent at a minimum.
| Apple dumped an enormous vat of blood into the shark
| infested waters.
| nicce wrote:
| I think I disagree. Current move was improvement for user
| privacy, compared to what it used to be. Abuse is only on
| speculation, not on what has actually been done.
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| Speculation as in "whats technically possible".
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Before is speculation. After is too late. When are people
| allowed to object?
| m4rtink wrote:
| This is not the first time they have run into this - due
| the to AppStore being a walled garden they are the sole
| gate keeper who decides what goes in and what not. Makes
| sure the users are safe and everything. Perfect, right ?
|
| Well, until protesters want to use an app in the store to
| coordinate their protests yet the government wants you to
| reject it, so the protesters can't use it:
|
| https://www.applefritter.com/content/teargas-walled-
| garden-i...
|
| With users not being able to install the app themselves
| Apple is the single point of failure with no plausible
| deniability like Android (any any sane OS in general)
| has. And they did reject the app.
|
| And just a few months before this happened I attended a
| talk about free software from FSF and they mentioned just
| the same thing about iOS and the gate keeper being the
| single point of failure a repressive regime can apply
| pressure on. Turned on to not be far fetched at all...
| croutonwagon wrote:
| Well.....
|
| I think its more than that. images sent with iMessage are
| stored in iCloud, even if the device is not necessarily
| uploading.
|
| How else would that have such warnings they claim in their
| announcement. [1]
|
| And we have seen these systems have their scope/use case
| changed in the past [2]
|
| To the point in the other discussion [3]. OP stated that
| Apples plans to scan and then upload suspected images are
| illegal. But i would think that they are only scanning
| images, client side, that users themselves are attempting
| to upload (either though attachments, or automatic iCloud
| backups etc) which would put Apple in the clear. In this
| case that would be iCloud images, or those that piggyback
| iCloud services like iMessage etc.
|
| [1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/ [2]
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/one-database-rule-
| them... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28110159
| jeromegv wrote:
| Stop repeating this lie. iMessages photos are not part of
| this. This is written in the technical document. This is
| only photos from iCloud photos. It's been debunked, just
| read this article: https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/app
| le_child_safety_initia...
|
| And of course the scope could change tomorrow. Just like
| the scope of Android could change tomorrow. They could
| even have changed the scope without doing an
| announcement!
| croutonwagon wrote:
| So there is really no need to be this aggressive.
|
| In my comment history it clearly shows that there's an
| effort to parse through the information and seek clarity.
|
| And its worth noting that iMessage data is and can be
| backed up to iCloud, and not just using backups. For many
| with multiple devices this is specifically useful.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208532
|
| Further, as to this
|
| >And of course the scope could change tomorrow. Just like
| the scope of Android could change tomorrow. They could
| even have changed the scope without doing an
| announcement!
|
| I am pointing out that there is a specific history of
| this already on record and documented. And their
| technical documents specifically state their intentions.
|
| Page 3 : https://www.apple.com/child-
| safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_...
|
| "This program is ambitious, and protecting children is an
| important responsibility. Our efforts will evolve and
| expand over time"
|
| I don't understand why you find such an observation so
| offensive. Its pretty clear Apple sees this as a first
| step into what will eventually be a much larger program.
| hansel_der wrote:
| > ability to scan all images is but a minor firmware update
| away
|
| ios already does on-device ml-based photo categorisation for
| some time, afaik no way to turn it off.
| romwell wrote:
| And now it's pretty much the same thing, but with a SWAT
| team knocking your door out when the ML messes up.
|
| Yay progress.
| davidcbc wrote:
| The SWAT team is knocking on your door after you've
| uploaded multiple instances of child porn to iCloud and
| those instances have been verified to actually be child
| porn by a human. That sounds fine to me.
| 542458 wrote:
| Do mandatory reporter laws work like that? I was under the
| impression that you had to report something _if you saw it_ ,
| but you had no obligation to be actively scanning or to
| compromise encryption to do so. For example, I don't think S3
| does any active scanning and you can definitely shove any
| encrypted blob you want onto their servers with no obligation
| to give them a decryption key.
|
| IMO this appears to be Apple either a) trying to preempt future
| criticism or regulation or b) responding to some behind-closed-
| doors pressure/bargaining with US authorities.
| nicce wrote:
| I think you have to be aware of what is happening, before you
| can say that nothing criminal happens. This is where scanning
| steps in. You can't turn blind eye.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| There is a big jump from reporting criminal activity if you
| happen to see it, to actively searching it out. It is the
| jump from police arresting you if they see you smoking a
| joint to police searching your rooms to make sure you don't
| have any cannabis in there.
| nicce wrote:
| I read the law and you are correct, there is explicitly
| mentioned that provider is not required to enforce
| seeking of CSAM evidence. However, they might be required
| to comply the demands of NCMEC if they ask to stop
| redistribution of certain visual depictions by providing
| hashes. This is were scanning steps in.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Apple aren't required to decrypt anything. This is why ever
| other server/storage provider are not also demanding access to
| everything client side (or keys to decrypt server side). It's a
| red herring for Apple to pretend they're "required" to do this,
| they're no more required to do so any more than the post office
| are required to open your mail on the off chance they might be
| handling CP...
| dhfjskh wrote:
| >Then HN taught me that any company storing images on their
| infrastructure in the US must report pedophilic images to the
| US government.
|
| That's not true though.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| They could still do the scanning, but if the photo fails it
| would just refuse to upload it and display an error to inform
| the user that the photo will not synchronize. There is no
| reason that the results of the scans need to be sent to Apple
| servers.
| nicce wrote:
| If you read the technical details, result of the scan is
| packed with the photo. So, if upload of photo fails, then
| result of the scan is not uploaded as well.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| I'm in two minds about this Apple news.
|
| In one part, the pro-privacy part of me is of course aghast at
| the whole idea.
|
| However...
|
| If you "read the room", there have been increasing noises from
| the global political world in recent years, and perhaps
| especially in the US.
|
| So if you think about it that way, it might be a case of Apple
| jumping before they were pushed.
|
| I mean, let's face it, if you wait for the politicos to come up
| with a solution and force it through with legislation, they
| really would put in actual backdoors and encryption bans given
| half the chance.
|
| I suspect others, such as WhatsApp, might begrudgingly follow in
| due course.
|
| There's always GPG and a whole litany of other tools and apps for
| those who know what they are doing in terms of privacy.
| ndr wrote:
| > There's always GPG and a whole litany of other tools and apps
| for those who know what they are doing in terms of privacy.
|
| And it's always there also for whoever they claim to want to
| catch, so this measure is useless.
|
| This is not protecting anyone, Apple might very well be
| anticipating the regulation, but that does not automatically
| deserve our praise. We should fight against this implementation
| and any regulation requiring similar measures.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| > And it's always there also for whoever they claim to want
| to catch, so this measure is useless.
|
| Right. This will, a) catch the low hanging fruit type of
| criminal and b) keep honest people honest while forcing them
| to give up something for nothing.
| studentrob wrote:
| > let's face it, if you wait for the politicos to come up with
| a solution and force it through with legislation, they really
| would put in actual backdoors and encryption bans given half
| the chance.
|
| They've tried to do this for decades and have failed. If
| they're going to do it then let it be on record. Let's see how
| voters like it.
| altantiprocrast wrote:
| 90% of the voters are too stupid or probably don't even know
| what encryption is. Many are also going to stick to party
| lines. It just matters whether the 10% swing voters will care
| about this issue *more than* the other awful things the
| leadership is doing.
| studentrob wrote:
| Plenty do know and care when news outlets' tech experts
| report on seemingly incomprehensible topics such as net
| neutrality or encryption. You can't white wash expert
| opinion. Again, the government has been asking for this for
| decades:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
| dnh44 wrote:
| Well, they could always try putting pressure on the tech
| giants in other places via other means in order to get them
| to acquiesce to these sorts of anti-privacy measures. Maybe
| via things like anti-trust measures which seem to be popular.
| unionpivo wrote:
| This is worse.
|
| If they ban encryption tech sector will kick up enough noise
| that even non tech people will at least notice.
|
| This way, it essentially opens a backdoor. Changing this from
| scanning hashes of pictures stored locally, to scanning for
| arbitrary things stored locally probably is not monumental task
| ( next in line probably hate speech ).
|
| And once you have that capability it's hard to argue to
| governments that you cant let them scan the content of either
| particular phone, or all of the phones, for whatever they want,
| which could be: .*
|
| This way, the message to non techies will be, we are protecting
| children, but bunch of online weirdos and maybe pedophiles
| don't want us too.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I'd say next in line would be stuff oppressive governments
| don't like. Winnie the Puuh might be front runner along with
| men standing shirtless in front of tanks.
| unionpivo wrote:
| Everything sold in China, already has that.
|
| Remember ICloud is operated by Chinese company in china.
| hef19898 wrote:
| And we all now that these governments stop carrying about
| their citizens at the border. Not.
| zepto wrote:
| Are you claiming that China will force Apple to scan the
| phones of US citizens now?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Not necessarily, but I jave no reason to believe China,
| Saudi, Turkey, the UAE or other countries with some kind
| of leverage won't try. Especially with their own citizens
| living abroad.
| zepto wrote:
| I'm sure they will try, but I don't see how this
| mechanism will help them.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Really? Now they are _technically_ capable to do so.
| Before that, they were not. Or they were and just didn 't
| tell anyone. Still kow idea how that mechanism might
| help?
| zepto wrote:
| Capable to do what exactly? What technical capability are
| you referring to? This isn't a general purpose file
| scanning mechanism.
| Componica wrote:
| Imagine taking a photo or have in your gallery a photo a dear
| leader doesn't want to spread. Ten minutes later there's a knock
| at your door.
| throwaway75 wrote:
| Imagine now a young child being sexually abused in front of a
| camera for all its years of existence, and that there's no
| knock on the door.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| So if the camera goes away, the child abuse won't happen?
| Somehow I doubt that.
| aeternum wrote:
| False dichotomy, how long will it take the predators to learn
| not to use apple devices as cameras?
|
| Yet the privacy implications will last forever. Once it's
| implemented, it only takes a rubber-stamp warrant to compel
| Apple to scan your device for anything the government deems
| concerning. In fact, no warrant needed in most countries.
| TravisHusky wrote:
| This whole thing was the final straw to get me to switch away
| from iPhone. I decided to get a PinePhone, even though they are
| not ready for primetime, I am an embedded OS developer by trade,
| so I figure I might as well give it a go and see what I can
| contribute. I only use my phone for web browsing and Telegram
| anyway which are apparently usable on PinePhone.
| Componica wrote:
| Imagine taking a photo or have in your gallery a photo a dear
| leader doesn't want to spread. Ten minutes later you heard a
| knocking at your door.
| raspyberr wrote:
| I think it's sad that the "think of the children" argument has
| been (ab)used so much that people are becoming numb to it.
| HNisBaizuo wrote:
| Wait until you find out your cherished support of using big
| tech to "fight nazis" over the last four years was a key part
| in normalizing moves like this.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yeah. It's gotten to the point I automatically assume anyone
| who uses children as an argument is acting in bad faith.
| josefx wrote:
| The tool is just hilariously easy to abuse, in the west it
| "may" be limited to child porn, in some countries it might be
| images featuring gay sex, political dissent, parodies or other
| kinds of crimes against the regime.
| Octabrain wrote:
| With the noble excuse of "protecting the children" they are just
| opening the vector that will allow them to go for other stuff in
| the future. I think this is just the first step and the intention
| is to make it "cognitively acceptable" for the majority of us
| later on.
|
| At this point, I have no doubt that in the future, a more
| ambiguous excuse such as "hate speech" will be used and under
| that umbrella, the elites will have a huge margin for pursuing
| any kind of "dissidence".
| HNisBaizuo wrote:
| Wait until you find out your noble support of using big tech to
| "fight nazis" over the last four years was a key part in
| normalizing moves like this.
| kfprt wrote:
| The authoritarian impulse is disturbingly common. This is a
| product of the long decline in societal trust. also, baizuo
| ashildr wrote:
| This vector has been opened for a while. Companies are not
| allowed to provide E2E encryption anymore, they have or will
| have (see EU) to scan every picture they host or transport for
| you.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Then how come so many companies provide E2E encryption? Are
| the signal devs about to be sent to Gitmo?
| DavideNL wrote:
| WhatsApp/Facebook critizing Apple for privacy... that's
| hilarious.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| I mean, at this point WhatsApp has a better rep. Facebook also
| hasn't compromised user data on behalf of China.
| danuker wrote:
| Theater. Just like the FBI-Apple trial to get data from locked
| phones.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
|
| I am pretty sure all of Big Tech is in collusion among
| themselves and with various governments, after what Snowden
| showed us.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost...
| dalbasal wrote:
| Take what you can get, just take it in context.
| isodev wrote:
| It's funny that WhatsApp, who themselves do the very same thing
| (in a much less transparent and privacy minded way) would call
| out Apple.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Kendra Albert, an instructor at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, has
| a thread on the potential dangers to queer children and Apple's
| initial lack of clarity around age ranges for the parental
| notifications feature.
|
| >> The idea that parents are safe people for teens to have
| conversations about sex or sexting with is admirable, but in many
| cases, not true. (And as far as I can tell, this stuff doesn't
| just apply to kids under the age for 13.) -- Kendra Albert
| (@KendraSerra) August 5, 2021
|
| >> EFF reports that the iMessage nudity notifications will not go
| to parents if the kid is between 13-17 but that is not anywhere
| in the Apple documentation that I can find.
| https://t.co/Ma1BdyqZfW -- Kendra Albert (@KendraSerra) August 6,
| 2021
|
| I'm against Apple forcing a backdoor onto every device, but this
| argument falls totally flat to me. Yes there are shitty parents
| out there, but despite that, parents still need the ability to
| parent. If Apple's "think of the children" arguments for their
| backdoor are wrong, then this "think of the children" argument
| against it is wrong too. There's nothing wrong with notifying
| _parents_ that their pre-teen is doing someone they shouldn 't be
| doing with their phone.
|
| IMHO, I'd support the existence of such feature, but only as long
| as it's a _user-installable option_ , not installed on every
| phone as part of the OS.
| wydfre wrote:
| What is going on with people - why on earth are people
| overreacting to this. Apple is doing something unconditionally
| good, and people are posting about how it is bad? I mean the
| people writing the opposition to this change just sound pants-on-
| head stupid, and obviously suffer from sort of mental health
| problem (such as this[0]). Imagine the poor NSA having to know
| this evil and doing nothing, and Apple is doing it's small bit to
| help. It sounds a lot better than the useless HUMINT divisions.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/p0i9vb/bought_my_fir...
| zpeti wrote:
| I really hope there is enough momentum to stop this. It's
| definitely the last straw for me in terms of apple products. I
| haven't bought a new iphone for 4 years, I'm slowly trying to
| switch to a lightphone (non smartphone). My mac needs a change
| but I will probably switch to linux.
|
| It's absolutely ridiculous what apple has become. The exact
| opposite of what they used to represent, when I loved them. God
| rest Steve Jobs soul, his 1984 ad is exactly what apple is now.
| Screwed devs on app store, strongarmed into compliance,
| cooperation with china, worse and worse UX on phones, and now
| this...
|
| Really disappointing.
| Razengan wrote:
| This reads like a pre-prepared rant.
|
| > _It 's definitely the last straw for me in terms of apple
| products._
|
| Uhh and where else will you go where the grass is so much
| rosier privacy-wise?
| nix23 wrote:
| Pixel4 with LineageOS (Non google apps) F-Droid and Nextcloud
| for Backup and sync....grass is rosy for me ;)
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| Same here. Doubles battery life too...
| misnome wrote:
| > I'm slowly trying to switch to a lightphone (non
| smartphone)
| GeekyBear wrote:
| >It's definitely the last straw for me in terms of apple
| products.
|
| Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have all been
| scanning content for those same child porn images for darn near
| a decade now.
|
| >The system that scans cloud drives for illegal images was
| created by Microsoft and Dartmouth College and donated to
| NCMEC. The organization creates signatures of the worst known
| images of child pornography, approximately 16,000 files at
| present. These file signatures are given to service providers
| who then try to match them to user files in order to prevent
| further distribution of the images themselves, a Microsoft
| spokesperson told NBC News. (Microsoft implemented image-
| matching technology in its own services, such as Bing and
| SkyDrive.)
|
| "There are two opportunities to look at content," when it's
| going into a cloud-storage account and when it's leaving, she
| said. "There is technology to do this," Grant added, pointing
| out that file signatures -- unique hashes or fingerprints --
| could be used to confirm the nature of the files.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/your-cloud-drive-really-pr...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Scanning on their cloud storage is different from scanning on
| users devices. The latter is opening a door to mass
| surveillance that wasn't even there before. _That_ is the
| problem, not the scanning itself.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| The thing that is changing here is that the images are
| scanned on the device before being uploaded to the cloud,
| instead of being scanned on the server after they are
| uploaded to the cloud.
|
| If it hasn't been a problem that Google has been scanning
| your cloud data for the last decade, it didn't suddenly
| become a problem now.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The scanning was already a problem. A lesser one, as not
| using Google or iCloud avoided it. Now I can't, because
| technically Apple can now look directly at the phone. No
| idea hey it is so hard to get that difference.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Technically, Google can look directly into Android
| phones.
|
| There is no difference.
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| How?
| nicce wrote:
| You should note the fact that everything on closed
| systems is based on trust. Apple has had always the
| opportunity to look directly on your phone. That does not
| simply change overnight when they add some feature. And
| currently they scan only those images on-device, which
| would end up into the cloud. You can avoid this scanning
| by not using iCloud.
|
| The feature what everyone is afraid of (scan all in my
| device), is super trivial to add generally. Company like
| Apple can push it to public in less like week regardless
| if this Child Safety came first.
|
| This new feature is actually really hard to develop,
| because they try to create E2EE system with backdoor. And
| they want to lock themselves out of this backdoor to
| prevent misuse.
| neilv wrote:
| I blew my entire weekend trying to move off iPhone, to
| something more trustworthy (a problem that's getting harder,
| because of some other things going on):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28111995
| cheald wrote:
| I run CalyxOS on a refurbished Pixel device. Works great,
| very privacy-respecting out of the box. Good at being a
| device that you actually own.
| stemc43 wrote:
| lineage os is what I use. oneplus devices are simply superb.
|
| but you are forewarned - you can blew through way more then a
| weekend de-oppressing you digital life.
| JK_2234 wrote:
| Comments from a different post shows this is "Presumably to
| implement E2E encryption, while at the same time helping the
| NCMEC to push for legislation to make it illegal to offer E2E
| encryption without this backdoor."
|
| If this is the case, then It is coming to every device (not
| just apple) or E2E will be made illegal(or a backdoor).
| 14 wrote:
| End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a system of communication
| where only the communicating users can read the messages. In
| principle, it prevents potential eavesdroppers - including
| telecom providers, Internet providers, and even the provider
| of the communication service - from being able to access the
| cryptographic keys needed to decrypt the conversation.[1]
|
| End-to-end encryption is intended to prevent data being read
| or secretly modified, other than by the true sender and
| recipient(s). The messages are encrypted by the sender but
| the third party does not have a means to decrypt them, and
| stores them encrypted. The recipients retrieve the encrypted
| data and decrypt it themselves.
|
| Because no third parties can decipher the data being
| communicated or stored, for example, companies that provide
| end-to-end encryption are unable to hand over texts of their
| customers' messages to the authorities.
|
| Would it even be considered end 2 end encryption based on
| this Wikipedia definition? I don't think it meets the
| definition if apple can determine certain files exist in a
| conversation.
| [deleted]
| hughrr wrote:
| It's too late either way. The fact that it even got this far
| through implementation says the vendor is not on my side. Not
| only that once capability is revealed it can be required by
| governments and manipulated under warrant. Particularly in some
| regimes, mine included, the vendor can be compelled to do
| something and not say anything. My comment doesn't even cover
| how monumentally flawed the entire thing is either.
|
| So I've been on the verge of doing this for years so this was
| the final push and motivation.
|
| Yesterday I sold my iPad and Apple Watch. They are being
| shipped today. I'm just waiting on refunds on my AppleCare for
| my MacBook and iPhone now and I will sell them.
|
| Yesterday I had a Nokia 215 arrive as a replacement phone. Also
| a monster pile of PC bits arrived which have been assembled
| into a Ubuntu running desktop. I am spending today migrating my
| data over carefully. When the MacBook sells I will buy a Nikon
| DSLR.
|
| At the end of this I lose perhaps 20% convenience for an
| immeasurable privacy gain, lose a big chunk of the distractions
| from my life and end up with some cash left over which I will
| use to go on holiday.
|
| The only thing I will miss is Apple Music but it'll give me a
| chance to curate my music collection without distraction again.
| amelius wrote:
| > It's too late either way. The fact that it even got this
| far through implementation says the vendor is not on my side.
|
| Can Apple force people to install this _even_ on devices they
| already sold?
| hughrr wrote:
| No but they just refuse to service your updates without
| this enabled.
| amelius wrote:
| Even security updates?
| easton wrote:
| Interestingly, iOS 15 is the first version of iOS in
| history to be optional if you want security updates. You
| will be able to choose if you want to go to iOS 15 and
| get the new features (including the CSAM prevention
| stuff), or you can stay on a security update only channel
| for iOS 14 (for a unknown period, but I'd guess until
| WWDC 2022? N-1 seems reasonable).
|
| https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-15-preview/features/ (under
| settings)
| dspillett wrote:
| Probably, at least until someone successfully gets a
| court to say otherwise, by which time it'll be irrelevant
| because everyone will either have installed & enabled it
| to get the updates or (less likely given how entrenched
| many iDevice users have become) moved to other products.
|
| And after the case to stop them refusing security updates
| for those without it installed+enabled, there will need
| to be another one to force them to allow it to be
| disabled, then a few circuits around the court of public
| tattle to make it _really_ disable and not magically re-
| enable itself at random intervals.
| tchalla wrote:
| If you don't use iCloud Photo Library or sync photos to the
| iCloud, none of this will apply to you.
|
| https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initi
| a...
| mandeepj wrote:
| > If you don't use iCloud Photo Library or sync photos to
| the iCloud, none of this will apply to you.
|
| Not true. They will be scanning your messages also for
| inappropriate content - https://www.apple.com/child-
| safety/
| kemayo wrote:
| That's also opt-in, though it's opted in by the parent of
| the child you're communicating with.
|
| If you're talking to adults, or children whose parents
| don't want to use the service, you're not getting your
| photos scanned.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Interesting, time for American teens to switch to
| WhatsApp, Telegram or Signal. Kids have sex life finds a
| way.
|
| Has Apple thought this through?
| tpush wrote:
| It only applies to children up to age 12 (inclusive).
| ratww wrote:
| Interesting observation. This might be more damaging to
| Apple than anything else.
|
| Without iMessage/Facetime, a large part of the peer
| pressure teens get for having an iPhone is gone. Now they
| might start asking for a Galaxy or something like that.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| "The green bubbles are people who can sext, blue bubbles
| are spies for Apple"
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| If this technology is that easily circumvented then why
| is there an expectation that it will be effective at all?
| tinus_hn wrote:
| The theory would be that many people are stupid. Of
| course we only know about criminals who get caught and
| that tends to be because they made a mistake, so it looks
| like most criminals are stupid.
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| The CASM scanning happens on device, right? At least so
| we've heard.
|
| My sense is Apple is trying to keep CASM off their
| servers. Scanning phones before it gets there was their
| solution to what I assume is a government
| demand/ultimatum. "Do this or we repatriate your foreign
| entity taxes" or some other shit.
|
| I too feel that Apple just caved and eroded trust that
| took decades to build up. The only way this gets sorted
| is the "screeching minority" continues to screech and
| brings other in. Notify state attorneys general, FTC,
| etc. will that do anything? Who know? My bet is that it's
| the DOJ behind all of this.
|
| Hopefully the plaintiff bar which are already preparing
| class action lawsuits will find a way to get documents in
| discovery that allude to government coercion. But then
| again I'm sure there would be a clever way those are not
| produced under some "national security" bullbaiting
| reason.
|
| All we can do is try, and keep the pressure on.
| FabHK wrote:
| > My sense is Apple is trying to keep CASM off their
| servers
|
| It could (maybe) also be a prelude to enabling E2E
| encryption for everything in iCloud.
| jeromegv wrote:
| That's my theory as well. I see all those people selling
| their iPhones that will instead use Android, upload all
| their photos in Google Photos, and Google will happily
| share all those those same photos. Yes, yes, yes, I know,
| one is done on device, the other one is done in the
| cloud, for me that is pretty much 2 sides of the same
| coin.
| rahoulb wrote:
| As I understand it (and I've not spent too long on this,
| just picking at various articles) - there are two
| separate things at play here.
|
| Firstly - CASM scanning is done via fingerprinting - the
| image is fingerprinted on device and when uploaded to
| iCloud that fingerprint is compared with the "dodgy
| images" fingerprints and an alert raised if a threshold
| of matches is reached (what's the threshold and with
| whom?)
|
| Secondly - there is on-device AI image recognition - when
| you send an image to someone else (via iMessage or the
| share sheet) it is checked for nudity and if the iCloud
| account in question is registered to a 13-year old or
| younger, their parents are alerted.
|
| In both cases the fingerprinting/scanning is on-device
| and is triggered by the images leaving the device.
| monocularvision wrote:
| > the image is fingerprinted on device and when uploaded
| to iCloud that fingerprint is compared with the "dodgy
| images" fingerprints and an alert raised if a threshold
| of matches is reached (what's the threshold and with
| whom?)
|
| Nope. The comparison is done on the device and the
| threshold is set there as well.
|
| I am not sure how alarmed I am yet at this whole affair
| but I do know that maybe 50% of posts I read about this
| have glaringly incorrect information which definitely
| dampers my alarmism.
| kemayo wrote:
| > Nope. The comparison is done on the device and the
| threshold is set there as well.
|
| As I understand it the fingerprinting and comparison _is_
| done on device, but it only happens as part of the
| upload-to-iCloud process. So the grandparent 's phrasing
| isn't unreasonable.
| dwighttk wrote:
| It isn't being circumvented. It is intended to work on
| photos that are uploaded to iCloud. If you don't use that
| (via turning it off or via selling everything Apple and
| switching to Linux) then you aren't using it.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| No. The intent is not that it works on iCloud. The intent
| is catching pedos.
|
| This is obviously not effective given that you can get
| around it that easily if you want to. Coincidentally
| though, it will be totally effective at surveilling the
| 99.999% that are normal users and won't go out of their
| way to disable iCloud. The whole CP thing is such an
| obvious farce.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| So, you trust Apple to install this spyware and only use
| it in the way they currently describe. Great!
|
| But what happens the second they get an order from
| $GOVERNMENT that tells them to use the spyware to also
| look at other documents on the device?
|
| I think it's pretty obvious what Apple will say. They'll
| say "OK." They have no plausible deniability to tell
| $GOVERNMENT to go pound sand - they have demonstrated the
| capability already! Telling the spyware to scan different
| files is a trivial change from a technical perspective.
| caymanjim wrote:
| They could have done what you describe at any time in
| history. This doesn't change anything in that regard.
| Either you trust Apple enough to use their products or
| you don't.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| So I guess the answer is "don't".
| adventured wrote:
| > They could have done what you describe at any time in
| history.
|
| That doesn't make sense. The issue is that Apple is very
| publicly signaling they are changing their approach to
| privacy _now_. Companies change approaches to any number
| of things all the time, they 're not static entities. As
| such you have to evaluate their nature as a consumer on
| an ongoing basis, not one time forever. It's true of
| food, it's true of consumer electronics, it's true of
| general product or service quality, it's true of privacy
| issues or censorship, and so on. Apple even knew the
| consequences ahead of time - per the insider notes - and
| don't care, they charged ahead regardless.
| m4rtink wrote:
| They could have done that any time because their code is
| proprietary, their hardware closed & won't boot code not
| signed by apple + they gate keep all third party apps
| from their walled garden.
|
| It would be much harder for them to pull of if the system
| was open with user actually in control.
| vel0city wrote:
| Before buying the DSLR, I'd recommend at least checking out
| the 1" sensor size market. These cameras still take excellent
| quality photos in a wide range of lighting conditions but are
| so much more compact than having an interchangeable lens
| system.
|
| I sold my DSLR a couple of years after getting my G9x Mark
| II. The DSLR was always gathering dust compared to the G9x
| which with a small belt case could easily be taken anywhere.
|
| That said these cameras are definitely not as flexible as a
| full SLR nor will you get the same performance. Its a large
| sensor when compared to a camera or other point and shoots
| but its still nothing compared to APS-C.
| dylan604 wrote:
| There are plenty of Micro 4/3 sensors that have
| interchangeable lenses too though, so you don't have to be
| locked into a compact camera with built-in lenses. You can
| have the best of both worlds.
| noahjk wrote:
| I've heard good things about Panasonic's LUMIX G7, and it
| looks to be at a very reasonable price point. I
| personally use a Fuji X-T3 which is also more reasonably
| priced than full-frame, between that and Micro 4/3 price-
| wise. The main differentiators for a smaller sensor are
| low-light performance & dynamic range, but 99% of the
| time these won't matter. Megapixels shouldn't really even
| be considered - any of these cameras can take a photo to
| put on a billboard, DPI scales in relation to optimal
| viewing distance
| vel0city wrote:
| Agreed, those are also an excellent middle ground from a
| full-sized DSLR to a compact shooter but still give most
| of the performance and about all the flexibility of a
| DSLR.
| f3d46600-b66e wrote:
| How does Nokia 215 solve the problem? All messages, including
| any images, wi now go through the carrier's network (and the
| recipient's carrier) and be subject to intercept, analysis,
| and sale by those two entities.
|
| I'm not sure how is that better?
|
| Wouldn't AOSP/Lineage with Signal installed be better?
| ursugardaddy wrote:
| I don't know if the 215 supports tethering, but there are
| feature phones that do paired with a laptop or even
| something like a steam deck (running linux) is the way to
| go if you really need mobile internet
|
| you get privacy and freedom from the smartphone-service-
| based-everything-forever lifesytle, it's nice
| strzibny wrote:
| Carriers, at least in the Czech Republic, are very
| restricted in what they can do. Regular phone calls and SMS
| messages are much more private than anything else out
| there.
| hughrr wrote:
| I only need to make calls on it and send SMS. I never
| assume those are private.
| f3d46600-b66e wrote:
| On a DSLR front: are there now DSLR/cameras that do the type
| of "computational photography" that pixel or iphones are
| doing?
|
| Not having to edit the pictures is a huge plus, and JPG files
| in Nikon, even with dynamic range on, are pretty mediocre
| compared to Pixel phone.
| hughrr wrote:
| You can post process that from RAW if you want to. I
| generally want people to not fuck around with my images
| before I get to do it though if I'm honest.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| Generally, if you are shelling out the kind of money for a
| dslr or mirrorless, you want control over the final image.
| I shoot in raw and tweak the images I like by hand in
| darkroom. Lightroom is another option if you want to
| support adobe.
|
| It takes longer but the end result looks MUCH better than
| anything your phone can produce. That said, sometimes I
| just want to take a selfie and not fiddle too much. Thats
| when I use my google pixel.
| ValentineC wrote:
| What might be useful for the next generation of prosumer
| cameras is being able to capture depth data (which is
| probably the main differentiator allowing computational
| photography to work on smartphones), with editing tools
| like Photoshop eventually supporting it.
| kowlo wrote:
| You may struggle to get the same functionality from a Nikon
| DSLR, but at least it has a better camera.
|
| Are you switching from a laptop to a desktop machine? Do you
| have no use for the portability anymore?
| hughrr wrote:
| I still have a company issued laptop (Windows based). I
| don't need a laptop for personal stuff.
| beardedwizard wrote:
| If you value privacy you won't use a company laptop for
| personal business.
| hughrr wrote:
| Yes the two worlds are and always will be kept separate.
| I could have worded that better before.
|
| I have a desktop (not laptop) for my own stuff and a
| laptop for company stuff and a dock and KVM setup for it.
|
| I am not using the company laptop for personal stuff.
| thunfischbrot wrote:
| Doesn't that really depend on how you use it? They might
| have a separate user account or even a whole separate OS
| installed like I do, encrypted, and use only online
| services.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| get the z5. I got it a month ago, its smaller and lighter
| than a dslr and the image quality has been excellent.
|
| heres my photo gallery all shot with the z5
|
| https://www.flickr.com/photos/193526747@N04/
| hughrr wrote:
| That's actually what I'm looking at so far. Thanks for the
| gallery link - some nice shots in there
| blacktriangle wrote:
| Even Apple Music has gone to shit. iTunes keeps managing to
| get worse and worse, and they're pushing hard to pretend you
| don't have your own collection to get you to buy into the
| subscription model.
|
| At this point I'm going back to owning a seaparate dedicated
| music device that is totally divorced from the computer.
| There's just something intentional about walking over to a CD
| player or record player, picking out an album, and putting it
| on compared to mindlessly browing Spotify playlists.
| Cwizard wrote:
| I recently started looking into buying my music again since
| 90% of my Apple Music listen time goes to the same generic
| piano playlist. I figure I could have bought the playlist
| 10 times over by now... My question is where do you buy
| music these days? I would like it digitally but I would
| like to own it (no DRM stuff). Any suggestions on a good
| store to buy music online? Last time I bought music I did
| it on itunes...
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Bandcamp! No DRM, and also unlimited streaming of your
| purchases.
|
| If most of your music is on major labels, then bandcamp
| may not be great for you.
|
| I love it. I think I have around 300 purchases. It's also
| great for discovering music. Much better than spotify in
| that regard.
| altantiprocrast wrote:
| https://www.navidrome.org/ might help
|
| (I'm unaffiliated, just sharing)
| ryantgtg wrote:
| No sure if the parent (grandparent?) would find this
| helpful: but here's the setup I use that provides a cool
| amount of options.
|
| I use a Yamaha receiver (R-N803) that has their MusicCast
| software on it. And I use these various inputs:
|
| - CD
|
| - Phono
|
| - USB. A little teensy usb loaded with music I've
| collected for the last 25 years - however, I've cleaned
| it up so it's not filled with random things that makes my
| wife go "what is all this stuff! I just want to see MY
| music!"
|
| - I have a Navidrome server running on a pi, with a
| hardrive connected to it. It basically contains the USB +
| all the other random stuff. This is played via the
| bluetooth input and Play:Sub app on my phone.
|
| - Likewise I play the bandcamp app via Bluetooth through
| the receiver, and spotify as well (I mostly use spotify
| for listening to the back catalogs of established
| artists).
|
| - Net Radio. Access thousands of radio stations,
| worldwide, that stream their service. It's pretty cool!
|
| There's more. But, point is the setup is cool and diverse
| and it's pretty easy to use.
| Raed667 wrote:
| I'm not really sure about feature phones either. Modern Nokia
| ones come preloaded with Facebook and Whatsapp.
| hef19898 wrote:
| As soon as I have time it will be CalyxOS on my current
| Pixel 2. Once I got to update, no idea when, to a Pixel 5
| I'm going to try Graphene OS. Oh, and Linux on my private
| laptop. I don't think you can do anything else to avoid
| FAANG's eyes. And MS's. Which sucks, I still remember when
| the only thing tp worry about was malware, not being spied
| upon by OEMs. Oh, and being spied upon by three letter
| agencies and their counterparts, but there is not much you
| can do about that either way.
| hughrr wrote:
| You can remove them from the screen and they are not used
| unless activated.
| Raed667 wrote:
| Again why are they there in the first place? Also how
| many eyes are on KaiOS anymore? How sure are we of its
| sandboxing and all other security/privacy aspects?
| zpeti wrote:
| Great to hear someone else is doing the same. For me the
| biggest issue is I have young kids and the convienence of
| quick photo taking is good on a smartphone. Might look into
| pinephone or something similar.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Might look into pinephone or something similar."
|
| Pinephone is my hope, too, but do not expect anything
| stable soon. That will take some time, probably years. It
| does not happen on its own, though, they need support now
| to make it a real alternative and not just a tinker toy.
| squarefoot wrote:
| They have other interesting products on their site. I'm
| also waiting to decide if getting this Pinephone or
| waiting for a beefier one with more battery life (1), but
| I can wait since I'm not into smartphones. In the
| meantime I supported them by purchasing their solder
| iron, plus tips and other add ons, which works
| surprisingly good for the price, and I'll probably buy
| one of their SBCs. So if anyone wants to support them,
| there are other ways to do that.
|
| (1) To Pinephone designers: I would absolutely _love_ a
| 2cm thick Pinephone if that allowed some more speed and
| serious battery life. I 'm serious about that; my current
| phone is a Nokia 8110 4G (the new "banana") which is 1.5
| cm thick, and although the OS is a joke and I use it only
| for calls and as 4G access point for my laptop, wrt
| usability it's the best thing I've bought in years.
| fsflover wrote:
| > I would absolutely love a 2cm thick Pinephone if that
| allowed some more speed and serious battery life.
|
| This is exactly what the keyboard mod is for. The
| keyboard has 6000 mHa battery (although it does not make
| Pinephone run faster).
| Fnoord wrote:
| There's like three major options if you want to run a
| FOSS smartphone, and I'll sum them up.
|
| Pinephone: Cheap. The device isn't very powerful. With
| people coming from an Apple device, that's a problem.
|
| Fairphone 3: Fair. The hardware isn't very powerful
| either, and the device is more expensive, but the product
| is better for the people who assembled it and the
| environment.
|
| Librem 5: Open. Even more expensive than Fairphone, but
| the hardware features killswitches, and there's no binary
| blobs. Lacks the fair advantages Fairphone has.
|
| Each of these can run a myriad of FOSS OSes from a
| deGoogled Android (ASOP-based fork) such as /e/ or Ubuntu
| or Debian/Arch/Ubuntu mobile versions or SFOS (Sailfish)
| community version (without Android emulation layer!), and
| each hardware and software has their pros/cons. I use a
| Fairphone 3 with stock firmware with a Pinephone as back-
| up phone (and have to use a Samsung flagship device for
| work). Previously I used a Fairphone 2 with LineageOS +
| microG (kind of like predecessor of /e/ before that took
| off).
|
| PS: On the gaming side, I'm getting a Steam Deck. Its a
| bang for the buck compared to Aya Neo/Nintendo
| Switch/gaming smartphones). No, it isn't open hardware,
| but the device runs Linux and you get root on it, plus
| all the reviews (including Linus Tech Tips) are positive.
| m4rtink wrote:
| A slight correction about Sailfish OS - the
| official/commercial Android emulation layer is only
| available for officially supported Sony Xperia devices,
| as can be seen in the table on Jolla Shop:
|
| https://shop.jolla.com/
|
| I do have Xperia X & Xperia 10 II and can confirm Android
| emulation layern works very well.
|
| You can run Sailfish OS on many other devices thanks to
| community porting work, but without support for the Jolla
| provide Android emulation layer. The devices will still
| run all the many native Sailfish OS apps + ARM compiled
| flatpaks just fine & the is community work in getting
| Anbox to run to provide Android emulation on the
| community ports as well. :)
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Fairphone"
|
| It is nice the the fairphone trys to be nice and fair,
| but I would rather have a focus of a actual open phone
| under my control and they do not deliver this (not to
| blame them, the issue is hard). Fixing the global
| exploitive economy is a different issue and trying to
| solve everything at once is not working usually.
|
| "Librem 5"
|
| How useful is a microphone killswitch, if there is no
| killswitch for the speakers, that can be used as a
| microphone, too? And it would be news to me, that it is
| now completely free of binary blobs and their claims
| always felt a little bit dishonest to me. I recently read
| a interview by the former CTO that confirms it
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Zlata
| n-T...
|
| I would go with the Pinephone. For now I have a stupid
| samsung phone with facebook app preinstalled and
| unremovable, but have not yet found the time to try
| lineage with it.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Pinephone is a certainly a good bang for the buck, but
| the hardware is nothing special, and the killswitches are
| DIP (better than nothing, like Fairphone's current
| iterations). If you want a cheap solution, this one's the
| one to opt for. Especially a good option for people who
| live in (relatively) poorer countries/regions than US or
| North/West-Europe.
|
| A lot of people in our world simply cannot afford a
| Fairphone. I can, and I applaud the project, so I went
| for it. I also applaud the other projects, and remember
| that perfect is the enemy of good. That a Librem 5 isn't
| going to be perfect in terms of security, is OK. Its
| their first iteration (and they had various iterations of
| it, which lead to considerable delays).
|
| There's also some keyboard smartphones such as Planet
| Cosmo Communicator and Planet Astro Slide. And some other
| ones as well such as F(x)tec (which is a good successor
| to Nokia N900). These are also niche, specific, with
| their hardware keyboard (which include custom layout such
| as Dvorak). But they can run alternative OSes, by
| default. I believe that, for me, this (hardware keyboard
| smartphone) is going to be the ultimate usability dream,
| if the keys are large enough. I previously owned a Nokia
| E71 and Nokia N900, before touch typing became the status
| quo.
|
| > [...] I recently read a interview by the former CTO
| that confirms it [...]
|
| I also backed Astro Slide (and own a Cosmo Communicator),
| and am disappointed with their hardware downgrade from
| Dimensity 1000 to 800. I hate it when promises are not
| kept. But it happens. As mentioned I owned a Nokia N900
| previously, but I wasn't fond of the keyboard, so I hope
| Astro Slide's going to be better. And, given its like the
| Cosmo Communicator (which I am used to), I am confident
| it will be. The big disadvantage of Planet devices is
| their slow updates, and being reliant on Mediatek (MTK)
| which means EOL soon.
|
| With regards to hardware keyboard I read Pinephone is
| planning such as well, which is great news because its
| otherwise such an affordable smartphone. Pine64 sells a
| lot of other cool FOSS stuff such as Pinecil and Pine
| Camera.
| fsflover wrote:
| > I believe that, for me, this (hardware keyboard
| smartphone) is going to be the ultimate usability dream,
| if the keys are large enough.
|
| https://xnux.eu/log/#043
| dahfizz wrote:
| > if there is no killswitch for the speakers, that can be
| used as a microphone, too?
|
| I know that physically / electronically, a speaker is a
| microphone, but is there any way for someone to actually
| record sound through the speakers on the librem? There is
| a lot more to a microphone than just the diaphragm...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Not easy probably, but likely doable, when someone think
| it is worth the effort. When the goal is security,
| because you feel (rightfully or not) targeted by state
| level intelligence, false sense of security can be
| dangerous:
|
| https://www.hackread.com/hackers-steal-data-air-gapped-
| pcs-m...
| detaro wrote:
| The work in that link has some pretty far-reaching
| requirements to claim that, that do not generalize to
| random phone hardware.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| It was just a random link. There are plenty of other
| articles in that area I read about, because I do care
| about privacy. I do not have them at hand - but the point
| stands - it is possible. So if there are speakers
| connected - I assume someone could listen.
|
| Maybe not at all likely (in my case) but when we talk
| about real security and for some people this is indeed a
| question of live and death, then I don't want to promote
| half solutions.
|
| edit: to clarify. , yes a microphone killswitch is
| probabyl useful in the way that it eliminates most common
| attack vectors to silently listening to people, but it is
| potential harmful if people would rely on it for 100% -
| but do get listened to and send to gulag because the
| local KGB did in fact took the effort to implement such
| spyware
| fsflover wrote:
| > And it would be news to me, that it is now completely
| free of binary blobs and their claims always felt a
| little bit dishonest to me.
|
| It's the only phone running FSF-endorsed OS without
| binary blobs, PureOS. It's recommended by the FSF [0].
| More details here [1].
|
| [0] https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/
|
| [1] https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-
| wiki/-/wikis/Freque...
| detaro wrote:
| Note that the FSF takes the position that binary blobs
| that are in non-writable memory and executed by secondary
| processors are part of the hardware and thus not relevant
| for judging the openness under RYF criteria. Which is how
| the Librem5 achieves that status, by deliberately picking
| components that do not use firmware upload from the host
| CPU but rather ship with the firmware in non-writable
| memory, and by adding read-only memory that is only used
| in the pre-boot environment. The OS is blob-free because
| the thing is engineered to make the blobs inaccessible to
| the OS. Which is a valid choice, since entirely blob-free
| would be impossible to make and ship, but I also see why
| people disagree that "blob-free" is a good description
| for the device.
| [deleted]
| dylan604 wrote:
| >phone with facebook app preinstalled and unremovable
|
| I've never used a phone like this, but are you also
| forced to provide FB credentials during initial setup? If
| not, then is the FB app just being installed a privacy
| threat if it is never used? Is it still accessing
| information on the phone without being tied directly to
| you?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| " Is it still accessing information on the phone without
| being tied directly to you? "
|
| I don't know. I do not have FB. But the fact, that I
| still have to have the app no matter what I want,
| illustrates my point, that I really do not own or
| controll this phone. But it works reliable, was
| affordable - AND I can remove the batterie.
|
| And I do it regulary, because then I can be sure, it is
| really turned off.
|
| Otherwise I kind of assume everything I do with it or
| around it, is potentially recorded.
|
| So yes, I really, really want a phone that I can trust,
| even if it is turned on.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I can assure you I'm not asking as an advocate for
| accepting FB to be pre-installed. I'm asking to know
| truly how vile it really is. At this point, I assume FB
| knows enough about everyone to be able to ID them without
| confirmation via logged in FB app.
| npongratz wrote:
| I have had a phone that had a Facebook application
| preinstalled, and prevented removal of said application.
| Setting up the phone did not require FB credentials.
|
| I would be worried that even without logging into
| Facebook or giving it my credentials, my FB-ized phone
| would help FB's efforts in creating and maintaining
| shadow profiles. As far as I'm concerned, since the FB
| app is tied into the OS so tightly that it cannot be
| removed, it poisons the phone and makes it an adversarial
| surveillance device.
|
| This type of poison, of course, is not limited to
| Facebook.
| jraph wrote:
| Deactivating the app is usually possible and is
| equivalent to uninstalling it on Android. It still takes
| some room in the system partition but you cannot use it
| anyway. Unless you root your phone, in which case you can
| also remove the app entirely.
|
| These preinstalled apps are still crap though, I'd rather
| have a smaller system partition and a bigger user data
| partition, should I own such a phone.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > if there is no killswitch for the speakers, that can be
| used as a microphone, too?
|
| Speakers can be wired to do that, but this is not
| something you can change with software.
| shadowoflight wrote:
| If one is okay with less-open hardware, the F(x)tec Pro 1
| X seems to be a good higher-end smartphone that has a
| decent camera sensor, slide-out keyboard, AMOLED display,
| and can be ordered with either Ubuntu Touch or Lineage
| preinstalled.
|
| It's at the top of my if-I-ever-jump-ship-from-Apple list
| of phones.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| That sounds quite good too. I like pragmatic approaches.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Yeah, I'm going for Astro Slide instead. I have used a
| keyboard similar to F(x)tec in past (the Pro 1 X is just
| a rebrand, btw) with Nokia N900 and Nokia E71. It simply
| does not type comfortably on such a keyboard, the keys
| are too small (there's always a learning curve with
| regards to layout as it is never 100% standard qwerty).
| If the Astro wouldn't be available I'm better off with
| touch type with a second screen as keyboard. Though, do
| see the Pinephone hardware keyboard link posted elsewhere
| in this thread. It seems to be akin to the Astro Slide.
| At least in spirit.
| hughrr wrote:
| Fortunately mine are teenagers now so that bit of my life
| is over mostly. I only get photos of them lurking, hiding
| and giving me the middle finger and that's about it :)
| asddubs wrote:
| well make sure to take plenty of pictures, you will
| cherish the memories of them lurking, hiding and giving
| you the middle finger for the rest of your life
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I understand that fear, but honestly this can not move me
| because I will unequivocally get worse or less candid
| photos of my kids if I switch to anything else. Apple has
| created the best portable camera I've ever used; it's not
| even close (this is coming from someone who used to make a
| living with photography). I really hate this situation but
| I'm clinging to the fact that I don't use iCloud and my
| kids are too young for iMessage.
| [deleted]
| nyuszika7h wrote:
| I find it laughable whenever someone says "this is the last
| straw" because it just shows how incredibly misinformed they
| are.
|
| Yes, backdooring E2E encryption in general is a bad idea.
| However, consider two things:
|
| * iCloud Photos was never E2E encrypted in the first place.
| They already can scan your photos all they want server-side,
| and they have been scanning for CSAM since 2019, while Google
| has been scanning for it since 2009. Yes, if iCloud Photos were
| to become E2E encrypted leaving in a backdoor like this could
| be bad, but it's still the lesser of two evils. Would you
| rather they keep photos non-E2E forever and have even more
| unfettered access to them than a "backdoor" allows? It does NOT
| scan photos that are not uploaded to the cloud, despite being
| on-device. And it's important to note the threshold and manual
| human review system put in place before the authorities receive
| any notification at all.
|
| * For iMessage, all this entails is warning children under 18
| about explicit content, and optionally notifying parents if the
| child is under 13 and the parent opted in. (I don't think it
| even sends the photo itself to the parents, but that's not
| explicitly clarified anywhere.) At no point do Apple or the
| authorities learn the contents of E2E encrypted iMessages.
| (Also worth noting: if you use iCloud Backup, your messages are
| no longer E2E encrypted in the backup, as Apple holds the keys
| to that. This was true even before the new system was
| introduced.)
| new299 wrote:
| > Would you rather they keep photos non-E2E forever and have
| even more unfettered access to them than a "backdoor" allows?
| It does NOT scan photos that are not uploaded to the cloud,
| despite being on-device.
|
| Yes I'd rather they do this. The fact that they're
| implementing on device checks doesn't suggest to me that they
| will be deploying E2E encryption. It suggests to me that they
| will be expanding on device scanning to all content in the
| future.
|
| If they were going to make iCloud E2E encrypted, it would be
| a clear win to announce this at the same time as deploying on
| device scanning.
| nicce wrote:
| Their PR did not handle this well. If you look at the spec,
| new encryption level has been added, which allows access by
| Apple only if CSAM hash threshold is reached. It is E2EE
| with backdoor now.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's not a backdoor if it's a public part of the system /
| protocol.
| nicce wrote:
| Hmm... that is technically correct.
| new299 wrote:
| Unless you have a public reference, I really doubt this
| is the case.
|
| Because they'd also need to be announcing that you can no
| longer reset your iCloud password and recover to a new
| device. And I've not seen anything that suggests this.
|
| So I suspect it is encrypted at rest, with a key known to
| Apple as before as well as this CSAM approach.
| nicce wrote:
| There is public reference on Apple site[1].
|
| Citing final phrase on the paper to TLDR their system:
|
| > Apple is able to learn the relevant image information
| only once the account has more than a threshold number of
| CSAM matches, and even then, only for the matching
| images.
|
| This applies only for images, so you can still reset your
| password. Technically, there are two layers of encryption
| on images. Regular server-side encryption and this "E2EE
| like" encryption, which allows access for CSAM matches in
| specific threshold.
|
| [1]: https://www.apple.com/child-
| safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > It does NOT scan photos that are not uploaded to the cloud,
| despite being on-device.
|
| Yet. Once it's on the device, it's a MUCH smaller step to use
| it in other ways. It's certainly easier fro governments to
| argue that they should be able to force it to be used
| arbitrarily... you know, for the children/terrorists/etc.
|
| > And it's important to note the threshold and manual human
| review system put in place before the authorities receive any
| notification at all.
|
| Until it's not. Once again, once it's in place, it's a lot
| easier for malevolent actors (governments) to force it to be
| used other ways.
|
| This a back door. Plain and simple. The fact that it's not
| _currently_ going to be used for evil (depending on your
| definition of evil) does not mean it won't be in the near
| future. Back doors are bad. How many times does this need to
| be said?
| treesknees wrote:
| > Yet
|
| I keep seeing this jump. There's no evidence this will
| happen. Apple can already technically do anything they want
| to compromise the security of your device in the next
| software update, so could Google or Samsung or any other
| company. But when in Apple's history have they done this?
| There is zero reason to believe this is the next step other
| than speculation and fear mongering.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > Apple can already technically do anything they want to
| compromise the security of your device in the next
| software update
|
| But they're making it easier for governments to come
| along and force them to do more. Or even for themselves,
| but I tend to think they're less of an issue.
|
| I know "it's a slippery slope" gets overused... but if
| you keep taking baby slips down that slope, it only gets
| slipperier. You should avoid taking as many of those
| steps as possible.
| nicce wrote:
| > But they're making it easier for governments to come
| along and force them to do more. Or even for themselves,
| but I tend to think they're less of an issue.
|
| It is as easy as always been. Only problem is that this
| might give them new ideas. As the most of the politics
| are probably non-tech people, they don't know what is
| possible.
|
| For tech person, functionality like this (on-device
| scanning and flagging) is super trivial to add. Antivirus
| engines have existed decades.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Anyone can imagine a hypothetical future feature and
| oppose it. What if Apple one day replaces all my music
| with Best of ABBA? That would be terrible, but they
| haven't done or proposed it, so why argue about it?
| emptysongglass wrote:
| Because that's not what's being argued here. Nobody in
| power cares enough to mass load ABBA onto your phone. But
| there's very powerful nation states who care, more than
| they care about anything else, to maintain power at any
| cost.
| sharken wrote:
| Could anyone have imagined law enforcement using Corona
| contact-tracing data for other purposes ?
|
| Because that actually happened, and in a democratic
| country even.
|
| So it's not hard to imagine what less democratic
| countries could demand of Apple.
|
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-29/queensland-
| coronaviru...
| avianlyric wrote:
| > Yet. Once it's on the device, it's a MUCH smaller step to
| use it in other ways
|
| We crossed this bridge a long time ago. Apple already has
| on device Neural Nets processing everyone one of your on
| device photos. That's what powers spotlight search and
| "photo memories".
|
| Simple fact of the matter is that this isn't the top of
| some slippery slope, it's half way down one. A slope we
| started down when we figured out how to put powerful Neural
| Nets on mobile devices in people's pockets.
|
| > Until it's not. Once again, once it's in place, it's a
| lot easier for malevolent actors (governments) to force it
| to be used other ways.
|
| Which is why Apples current solution makes it cryptography
| impossible to decrypt photos until a large enough number of
| suspect photos have been uploaded.
| trangus_1985 wrote:
| The key difference, of course, is that when the neural
| network classifies certain types of content, it doesn't
| forward it to a centralized server "for review"
| sharken wrote:
| And depending on that review you could find yourself on
| the other end of some "questioning" from law enforcement.
|
| Yes, you might laugh and say that won't happen, but on-
| device scanning is the first step.
|
| In less trustworthy countries it's not that farfetched to
| imagine what this can be used for.
|
| So Apple must back down now or face the consequences in
| the form of loss of reputation and eventually loss of
| sales.
| Notanothertoo wrote:
| Exactly. This has all been done for 10 years in various
| forms.
| kkarakk wrote:
| And the journey to not being able to trust big tech smartphones
| just like you can't trust big tech social media has been
| completed.
|
| Guess I'm gonna have to buy a semi terrible privacy focused smart
| device with phone capabilities in the near future.
| 1024core wrote:
| The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
| Everything starts off with "won't anyone think of the children?".
| Next thing you know, Apple is scanning your photos for faces of
| known "terrorists", etc.
|
| I have children, and hate CP with a passion, but know that this
| is not the answer.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Terrorists, illegal drug use, "dangerous" materials like pipes
| or fuses (god forbid if you like model rocketry). The list goes
| on.
| voidnullnil wrote:
| The most annoying thing is that everyone denouncing Apple's
| action still agree that "CSAM" is a problem that needs action by
| technology companies (and thus decentralized stuff should be
| illegal). While "CSAM" is a problem, just like any crime, it's
| completely overblown and much more rare than they pretend it is.
| NO. The internet doesn't need regulation. Never.
|
| - Most instances of "child abuse" involve something that matches
| the legal term, but involves teenagers and is almost certainly
| not abuse
|
| - Lots of conservatives want to punish said teens and anyone
| involved for sexuality and go along with the sophistry of calling
| people abuse victims when they have consensual sex or post their
| nude photos online
|
| - Naturally, there is no incentive to look at naked 5 year olds,
| because that's not how the human body works. This is an edge case
| and is what the media makes out to be the norm
|
| Stop pretending to have a "mature perspective". Companies should
| literally never touch your data unless there is a search warrant.
| Now that I read this article I'm concerned about what WhatsApp is
| doing.
| throwaway75 wrote:
| Sometimes there are more important things than maintaining
| individual privacy and this is clearly one of them.
|
| Finding and protecting even a few children from becoming victims
| of pornography is clearly something that is well worth my not
| having 100% privacy.
|
| Even knowing that there might be false alarms.
|
| Despite what the strident discourse has been, individual privacy
| is not some sancrosanct idea that cannot ever be tread upon.
| There are some things that are far far more important than that.
| okokwhatever wrote:
| No sir, not at all. The basement of all individual rights is
| freedom. If police can't do their job in a proper way we
| shouldn't abandone our right to not be monitored in our private
| life to supplant their ineffectiveness.
| HNisBaizuo wrote:
| It's a private company. They can do whatever they want.
|
| Something something "but we fought Nazis together!" forced
| justification
| gigel82 wrote:
| Politicians love this guy ^ ; that's the way to right-think
| citizen, carry on :)
| throwaway75 wrote:
| Child pornographers love this guy ^ ; that's the way to
| right-think consumer, carry on :)
| holstvoogd wrote:
| I'm so fucking tired of these asswipes from companies are a
| thousand times worse pretending they are better. They literally
| sell all your data to anyone who wants is, but noooo, apple bad!
| I'm not saying apple is some kind of bastion of privacy or
| whatever, but at least they are not selling my data to pay for
| their spyware vessels.
|
| To those 'experts': Get off you high horse and do better. Prove
| me wrong, go build a working open-source phone, go provide a
| image hosting service that does not analyze every single photo
| you upload. Go build a fucking app with out trying to steal my
| contact book. Fuck you
| jensensbutton wrote:
| You sound like someone lashing out after having their faith
| challenged. You're even making things up to make yourself feel
| better about your choices.
|
| Calm down. People challenging Apple to do better only benefits
| you.
| badRNG wrote:
| As someone who feels the same way as the commenter you are
| replying to: it does feel strange that the head of _WhatsApp_
| owned by _Facebook_ would have even the slightest bit of
| credibility when discussing privacy, especially as it relates
| to Apple. The list of people with less credibility on the
| subject is incredibly low.
| holstvoogd wrote:
| I have no love for apple and their crap. I'm just tired of
| the endless stream of this bullshit fake outrage by the worst
| perpetrators.
| a254613e wrote:
| > They literally sell all your data to anyone who wants is
|
| Where/how can I buy all data for, let's say a dozen users, that
| facebook collects?
|
| No wonder public is completely misinformed about how ad revenue
| based companies operate when even on HN blatant lies are highly
| upvoted.
| hansel_der wrote:
| yes "selling the data" is a oversimplification. but "they
| sell access to your data to other companies, that also have a
| significant base of user/customer-data, and this let's those
| other companies correlate your identity/profile" is just not
| as catchy or understandable.
| cascom wrote:
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/catholic-
| priest-...
| saddlerustle wrote:
| Thats not facebook. Some scummy companies do sell user
| data, but facebook does not and never has.
| badRNG wrote:
| For Facebook to be selling my data, it isn't necessary
| that they email a data broker some spreadsheet of my
| personal data. Selling advertisers access to an
| incredibly intimate and private picture of my personal
| life so that they can best exploit my specific life
| circumstances to unduly influence me is _exactly_ what
| bothers me about Facebook "selling my data."
|
| To claim that Facebook isn't selling my data is a
| semantic distinction without a difference at best, and
| just downright dishonest at worst.
| javagram wrote:
| "literally sell all your data to anyone who wants"
|
| This, which started the discussion, is just downright
| false. Who does Facebook sell my private photo albums to
| for instance? How could I buy someone's photos?
| websites2023 wrote:
| Become an advertiser. "Selling your data" is a shorthand for
| what actually goes on: selling your attention based on data
| that those platforms have on you.
|
| Google does this too. Any brand that relies on advertising
| instead of sales of its actual hardware is in this game.
| iamstupidsimple wrote:
| > Go build a fucking app with out trying to steal my contact
| book. Fuck you
|
| Not saying I agree. But people have tried, guess which social
| networks self-select out of survival?
| badRNG wrote:
| > But people have tried, guess which social networks self-
| select out of survival?
|
| Is the implication that a social media network won't survive
| if it doesn't steal my contacts? Besides, not all social
| media companies stoop to that level. For all it's problems,
| Reddit doesn't steal your contacts.
| gbrown wrote:
| Well, there was that priest who got outed through data
| brokers recently...
| hansel_der wrote:
| > Prove me wrong, go build a working open-source phone, go
| provide a image hosting service that does not analyze every
| single photo you upload.
|
| the market says it has to be either free or elitist/glamorous,
| superior and idealistic don't work.
| retskrad wrote:
| Tim Cook is one of the best managers in the world but this is one
| of very few instances where Apple completely forgot about their
| mission as a company under his leadership.
|
| I'm surprised he went ahead with this considering how much
| privacy goodwill they have built up over the years.
| pndy wrote:
| > Tim Cook is one of the best managers
|
| What my SO says that he's just the manager of sales interested
| in selling their products and nothing else; the "else" is done
| by others - with marketing and pr and actual work.
| nyuszika7h wrote:
| This is extremely hypocritical coming from Facebook, who is
| working on a system to scan E2E encrypted WhatsApp messages to
| use them for targeted advertising.
| 46ve18v wrote:
| That's not even Apple role to fight child abuses. That's the
| governements role
| fjfaase wrote:
| I understand that the EU is working on legislation that would
| make Apple's Child Safety plan manditory on all private
| communication platforms within the EU.
| rmvt wrote:
| that's awful. do you have a source on this?
| modernerd wrote:
| See https://european-pirateparty.eu/child-protection-through-
| sca....
|
| > Not only searches for known pictures and videos are to be
| legalised, but also error-prone "artificial intelligence",
| for example to automatically search text messages for
| "luring" of minors. If an algorithm reports a suspected
| message, message content and customer data could be
| automatically forwarded to law enforcement agencies and non-
| governmental organizations worldwide without human
| examination.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| It will only take a few false-positive images shared on
| WhatsApp by everyone to take down that initiative.
| amelius wrote:
| How would that work on a Linux phone?
| ip_addr wrote:
| If you upload a file to email/a messenger service it would
| then scan the image.
| viktorcode wrote:
| I believe it has a good chance of failing on level of different
| EU states. Just try telling a general German citizen that their
| private communications must be monitored.
| [deleted]
| HNisBaizuo wrote:
| HN community was extremely avid about using big tech to stifle
| its political opponents based entirely on privacy-invading
| metadata collection over the last four years. They even bent over
| backwards with a mass addiction to the "Private companies can
| censor anyone they want" meme. They applauded it every step of
| the way.
|
| Now that the same tech will be applied to HN's child porn stash,
| all of a sudden, invasions of privacy are the grand evil.
|
| You people deserve the very worst of what big tech has to offer.
| mkl95 wrote:
| I find this controversy kind of vexing. Apple crossed the line
| between being strongly opinionated and patronising years ago.
| There's nothing about this plan that is out of character, Apple
| have and will continue making unilateral decisions on behalf of
| their users because it's their shtick.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-09 23:01 UTC)