←back to thread

358 points ofalkaed | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.823s | 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 #
JimDabell ◴[] No.45554977[source]
I don’t think you can accurately describe it as client-side scanning and false positives were not likely. Depending upon how you view it, false positives were either extremely unlikely, or 100% guaranteed for practically everybody. And if you think the latter part is a problem, please read up 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.

Right, well I wanted a debate. And Apple changed their minds. So how is it reminding you of that? Neither of those things apply here.

replies(1): >>45555770 #
1. mixmastamyk ◴[] No.45555770[source]
Forgot about the concept of bugs have we? How about making Apple vulnerable to demands from every government where they do business?

No thanks. I'll take a hammer to any device in my vicinity that implements police scanning.

replies(1): >>45556021 #
2. JimDabell ◴[] No.45556021[source]
> Forgot about the concept of bugs have we?

No, but I have a hard time imagining a bug that would meaningfully compromise this kind of system. Can you give an example?

> How about making Apple vulnerable to demands from every government where they do business?

They already are. So are Google, Meta, Microsoft, and all the other giants we all use. And all those other companies are already scanning your stuff. Meta made two million reports in 2024Q4 alone.

replies(1): >>45559124 #
3. mixmastamyk ◴[] No.45559124[source]
Imagine harder. Apple has had several high profile security bugs in the last few years, and their OS is decried here as a buggy mess every release. QA teams went out of fashion.

The onus is on you to prove perfection before ruining lives on hardware they paid for.

100x worse on the vulnerability front, as the tech could be bent to any whim. Importantly, none of what you described is client-side scanning. Even I consider abiding rules on others’ property fair.