[HN Gopher] Tell Apple: Don't Scan Our Phones
___________________________________________________________________
Tell Apple: Don't Scan Our Phones
Author : sunrise54
Score : 83 points
Date : 2021-08-17 21:16 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (act.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (act.eff.org)
| new_realist wrote:
| It can be more transparent to scan on users devices, which are in
| the possession of the public, than it can be to scan through user
| dat in the cloud, which is hosed in private and controlled "black
| box" data centers. This can be a step forward for user privacy
| and auditability, if Apple plays it that way.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Disappointing number of signatures, 471 so far (2132 GMT)
|
| I wonder how the Taliban would love to use this type of
| technology.
| finger wrote:
| Don't forget iPad OS.
| echelon wrote:
| Don't just sign this.
|
| Call or email your representatives and ask them to support the
| _Open App Markets Act_ and the _Digital Fair Repair Act_.
|
| https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati...
|
| https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
|
| edit: Wow, two popular Apple stories removed from the HN front
| page today. How many more go down like this?
| 99mans wrote:
| This petition, or whatever it is supposed to be, completely mis-
| characterizes the problem entirely. It isn't that Apple can scan
| photos, it's that Apple can install any software of their
| choosing at any time, whether they choose to tell you or not.
| Therefore, there is no expectation of privacy on such closed
| source proprietary platforms.
| vezycash wrote:
| Once Apple releases this 'feature', a law would eventually be
| passed to force Google to add the same to Android.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Oh don't worry, Google is way ahead of Apple when it comes to
| scanning users' data on devices. I would be surprised if Google
| weren't doing this but remotely (vs. on-device).
| aaomidi wrote:
| They are doing this remotely, and the thing is its BETTER to
| do it remotely than on device.
|
| The issue here with Apple is that they want to move this type
| of scanning on-device. No one has really complained about
| them scanning for CSAM on iCloud.
|
| The data is NOT e2ee in iCloud, there is literally no reason
| for them to move this scanning to on-device.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| > Under pressure from U.S. law enforcement, Apple has put a
| backdoor into their encryption system.
|
| I'm not on board with what Apple's doing here, but is there any
| evidence to suggest this statement? From what I know, this is at
| best misleading and at worst downright false. For example, the
| scanning is done on user devices so that image data remains
| encrypted from the time it leaves a users' phone to the time it
| is retrieved by a user (from any client).
| 99mans wrote:
| Exactly right, from what you know, which is limited to the
| point of useless on a proprietary, closed source system. It's
| almost guaranteed to be backdoored being as such.
| zepto wrote:
| > It's almost guaranteed to be backdoored being as such.
|
| I.e. it's a guess.
| aborsy wrote:
| Like, what sort of evidence do you want exactly?
|
| Apple can search for arbitrary information on user's property.
| If you can search ciphertext, it's not end to end encrypted
| anymore. End to end means no knowledge of plaintext should be
| discernible (sometimes even metadata).
|
| Further, the dataset is set by them, is opaque and can be
| anything.
|
| That's obviously a back door in encryption (for government).
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple can search for arbitrary information on user's
| property.
|
| This is simply false, if you are referring to the CSAM
| mechanism.
| josephcsible wrote:
| What do you think is stopping Apple from including a hash
| of Tank Man along with all of the real CSAM hashes?
| sharken wrote:
| I guess it is a rhetorical question, but this is what
| will happen next if Apple doesn't halt this scanning
| initiative.
|
| Too big to listen seems to be what Apple thinks of this
| matter.
| aborsy wrote:
| Which part is false?
|
| They state they begin with image data (with a data set they
| control). In the future, they "can" evolve the scope to
| anything.
|
| Read the EFF articles. They are well written.
| zepto wrote:
| It's both false and unsubstantiated. As described, it is not a
| back door, and there is no evidence that it was done under
| pressure.
|
| Either of them could turn out to be true, given some evidence.
| politelemon wrote:
| This is not a useful petition. Regardless of the outcome, their
| nature has been shown once again, but this time it is in a more
| egregious and nefarious manner, and a lot more people are taking
| notice.
|
| The reason it's not useful is that it temporarily hides away a
| side, or an image, that users aren't comfortable with. It will
| not change intentions and facts, it only exists so that people
| with brand loyalty and a brand identity can feel better about
| being tied to an ecosystem.
|
| The problem here is the brand identity, in a truly privacy
| friendly ecosystem, no such thing should exist. I encourage
| people to not sign it, and instead reflect on what privacy
| options do exist without a marketing message telling you what it
| should be.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-17 23:02 UTC)