←back to thread

358 points ofalkaed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

Just curious and who knows, maybe someone will adopt it or develop something new based on its ideas.
Show context
JimDabell ◴[] No.45554957[source]
Apple’s scanning system for CSAM. The vast majority of the debate was dominated by how people imagined it worked, which was very different to how it actually worked.

It was an extremely interesting effort where you could tell a huge amount of thought and effort went into making it as privacy-preserving as possible. I’m not convinced it’s a great idea, but it was a substantial improvement over what is in widespread use today and I wanted there to be a reasonable debate on it instead of knee-jerk outrage. But congrats, I guess. All the cloud hosting systems scan what they want anyway, and the one that was actually designed with privacy in mind got screamed out of existence by people who didn’t care to learn the first thing about it.

replies(4): >>45554967 #>>45555004 #>>45556180 #>>45576268 #
JoshTriplett ◴[] No.45554967[source]
Good riddance to a system that would have provided precedent for client-side scanning for arbitrary other things, as well as likely false positives.

> I wanted there to be a reasonable debate on it

I'm reminded of a recent hit-piece about Chat Control, in which one of the proponent politicians was quoted as complaining about not having a debate. They didn't actually want a debate, they wanted to not get backlash. They would never have changed their minds, so there's no grounds for a debate.

We need to just keep making it clear the answer is "no", and hopefully strengthen that to "no, and perhaps the massive smoking crater that used to be your political career will serve as a warning to the next person who tries".

replies(2): >>45554977 #>>45555009 #
btown ◴[] No.45555009[source]
This. No matter how cool the engineering might have been, from the perspective of what surveillance policies it would have (and very possibly did) inspire/set precedent for… Apple was very much creating the Torment Nexus from “Don’t Create the Torment Nexus.”
replies(1): >>45555030 #
JimDabell ◴[] No.45555030[source]
> from the perspective of what surveillance policies it would have (and very possibly did) inspire/set precedent for…

I can’t think of a single thing that’s come along since that is even remotely similar. What are you thinking of?

I think it’s actually a horrible system to implement if you want to spy on people. That’s the point of it! If you wanted to spy on people, there are already loads of systems that exist which don’t intentionally make it difficult to do so. Why would you not use one of those models instead? Why would you take inspiration from this one in particular?

replies(2): >>45555213 #>>45555748 #
JoshTriplett ◴[] No.45555213{3}[source]
> I can’t think of a single thing that’s come along since that is even remotely similar. What are you thinking of?

Chat Control, and other proposals that advocate backdooring individual client systems.

Clients should serve the user.

replies(1): >>45555362 #
1. JimDabell ◴[] No.45555362{4}[source]
> Chat Control, and other proposals that advocate backdooring individual client systems.

Chat Control is older than Apple’s CSAM scanning and is very different from it.

> Clients should serve the user.

Apple’s system only scanned things that were uploaded to iCloud.

You missed the most important part of my comment:

> I think it’s actually a horrible system to implement if you want to spy on people. That’s the point of it! If you wanted to spy on people, there are already loads of systems that exist which don’t intentionally make it difficult to do so. Why would you not use one of those models instead? Why would you take inspiration from this one in particular?