Consider the case: Someone sends u some disgusting pic, then gets accidentally uploaded into icloud. Will police show up at your door?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Addresses CSAM Detection Concerns, Will Consider Expanding System on Per-Country Basis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Apple distributed an internal memo today which referred to pushback against its new content surveillance measures as "the screeching voices of the minority."
No it isn’t. It is not using standard hashing. It is using perceptual hashing.
The database of known pictures is what has been used to train the perceptual algorithm.
An innocent photo containing a particular combination of features, for example a dark skinned child plus a light skinned child plus a cactus plant plus the light source being on the right, could trigger a warning based on a known abuse image having the same combination of features.
Forth Amendment only protect yourself from unreasonable search by public servant, it does not protect you from private enterprise.
You can be searched by store employee if they suspect you stealing and legally they can detain you. Apple has all the right to scan your phone.
That statement was not from Apple but I believe it was from the director of the child center organization Apple is working with. She seems to think the initial uproar over this new policy is from a vocal minority and nothing to really worry about.
You can’t come to my house without my consent, this is trespassing, and there is law that define what is trespassing.
Again, if privacy is right, like freedom of speech or freedom of movement, can you point law say it is right. Even fundamental right defined by constitution, there are limitations to them. And government is capable to set law limit your rights and freedom.
In this case, Apple is private enterprise, it doesn’t not have to bound by forth amendment
Cue the conservative outrage. What? This was supposed to make Q-anon ecstatic.
Why the reverse? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question to which the answer should be obvious).
And Edward Snowden is every bit as reliable and credible as his host Vlad.
Why the reverse? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question to which the answer should be obvious).
And Edward Snowden is every bit as reliable and credible as his host Vlad.
Source on this? Or maybe I misread the original information?
Your scenario is not supposed to be able to happen with this method of hashing.
If it weren’t for Edward Snowden, we would still believe that NSA stands for “No Such Agency”. Edward Snowden is a hero. The reason he is in Russia is the fact that only Putin could stand up to Obama and not extradite or imprison him, as has been confirmed by the case of Julian Assange.
Last edited:
This is a f-en disgrace for several reasons.
1. Apple previously had a 100% pro-privacy policy. Remember, the San Bernardino shooter's phone? Apple wouldn't budge!
2. Apple refuses to provide any transparency into the algorithm. Of course they won't make it open source.
3. Who is trust Apple that they won't twist this algorithm to identify 'undesirables' like Trump supporters and harass them by SWATing them?
4. We've already seen the internal Apple memos about 'screeching voices of the minority'. This is what they think about us, and you would trust them with such power?
**** Apple and **** their slurpers.
1. Apple previously had a 100% pro-privacy policy. Remember, the San Bernardino shooter's phone? Apple wouldn't budge!
2. Apple refuses to provide any transparency into the algorithm. Of course they won't make it open source.
3. Who is trust Apple that they won't twist this algorithm to identify 'undesirables' like Trump supporters and harass them by SWATing them?
4. We've already seen the internal Apple memos about 'screeching voices of the minority'. This is what they think about us, and you would trust them with such power?
**** Apple and **** their slurpers.
Imagine this being used against Apple's ideological enemies, basically all conservatives, anyone who opposes the mainstream media, etc... Once the door is opened, you can't shut it.
Don’t. Tyler is a very well adjusted young man who understands the importance of liberty vs fake safety. That is what this system is.
I wonder if the people who are against it the most right now, actually have child porn on their phones and feel caught.
in fact they are scanning for child abuse since 2019. so nothing new about it.
in fact they are scanning for child abuse since 2019. so nothing new about it.
Last edited:
Except for the fact that the mandate to report that applies to companies that provide digital communications essentially deputizes technology companies. It's a terrible, terrible loophole.
no.
Only if you have multiple known CSAM pics in your library, a flag is raised: your account is suspended and a private NGO is notified. Nobody but Apple knows what the treshold is; obviously they’re not going to communicate what it is but it’s going to be a large number for sure.
1. They did massive efforts and are implementing a privacy-oriented way to get CSAM pics of their server infrastructure without budging on privacy by comparing hashes client-side. Why do so many people misinterpret what Apple achieved here? It’s much more advanced than what MS, Google or FB do. Why should Apple allow for millions of CSAM pics to be hosted on their servers?
2. They released a technical white paper. Read it.
3. If you don’t trust Apple, you shouldn’t buy their products. They could have been doing this kind of stuff in secret for years. But the moment the police shows up on the door of a Trump supporter, because he has an iPhone, it’s all over: Apple is not stupid.
4. The NGO, NCMEC, called it screeching voices, not Apple.
Seriously, can they? In normal countries (it may be different in the US) with a rule if law, only the police are allowed to search me (without my consent). And pure „suspicion“ is no legal justification for employees to detain me - they have to basically witness me stealing something.
Also, while we’re at it, I don‘t want there to be a general suspiciion, I don’t want everyone and me be „suspected“ by Apple for having and distributing child porn to warrant a search.
„NeuralHash is a perceptual hashing function that maps images to numbers. Perceptual hashing bases this number on features of the image instead of the precise values of pixels in the image“
Where did they? (for their perceptual image hashing algorithm, or image recognition more generally)?
I can only find one for their PSI system (the „voucher“ thing).
Calling Tim Cook an “accountant” is what you get when you don’t take the time to educate yourself.
Similar to Bill Gates dismissing Steve Jobs as “just a super salesman.”
So it is OK with Tim if millions of users each have one photo of child sex abuse. Odd ethical standard.
It’s called setting the sensibility of a test. Every test needs a threshold or it would be useless since you’d just get tons of false positives to sift true and miss actual positive.
We need more scientific literacy in the Western world, and it showed in the reaction to covid19…there are difficulties understanding the basics of science, statistics, math, etc.
Interesting seeing someone from Germany having such notion, implying that such overarching system to police the public by a private company to be a good thing.
No but it sure is funny that some of the folks that for years believed in conspiracies involving every political enemy being a pedo are the most outraged by this pedo-busting tech..
Wrong.
Fourth Amendment protections apply to searches conducted by private parties who act as “agents” of a government. How do you know if a private citizen or company acts as a government agent? The legal definitions and tests vary by court, but generally, a court will consider the degree of control that the government exercised over the private party’s search and whether the private party had an independent reason, unrelated to law enforcement, to conduct the search (such as a business justification).
This issue is arising increasingly in criminal cases in which online service providers turn over information that the government ultimately seeks to use as evidence of a crime. If a service provider is found to have conducted a warrantless search as a government agent, the criminal defendant may be able to prevent the court from considering not only the evidence that the service provider gave to the government, but any subsequent discoveries due to that initial evidence.