Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Employees Internally Raising Concerns Over CSAM Detection Plans

Here’s a question: what types of pics are flagged on someone’s iCloud as being child porn?

If someone has a folder of pics that are album covers is the cover for Van Halen’s Balance album considered child porn? What about the album 1984…? U2 Songs of Innocence…?

I get why Apple is doing this and abhor those who ever are involved with it but it also makes me wonder how thorough these scans going to be.

0b589ccd1c7fac0af79f1bd4256ee942.jpg



cf35044ff88bbbfefa7887bf50b908b9.jpg


9870220bca35e07f45646b089d81083e.jpg
 
Glennster said:
Here’s a question: what types of pics are flagged on someone’s iCloud as being child porn?

If someone has a folder of pics that are album covers is the cover for Van Halen’s Balance album considered child porn? What about the album 1984…? U2 Songs of Innocence…?

I get why Apple is doing this and abhor those who ever are involved with it but it also makes me wonder how thorough these scans going to be.

0b589ccd1c7fac0af79f1bd4256ee942.jpg



cf35044ff88bbbfefa7887bf50b908b9.jpg


9870220bca35e07f45646b089d81083e.jpg
Click to expand...

And the 1969 Blind Faith original cover...

1630330525821.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glennster
Glennster said:
Here’s a question: what types of pics are flagged on someone’s iCloud as being child porn?

If someone has a folder of pics that are album covers is the cover for Van Halen’s Balance album considered child porn? What about the album 1984…? U2 Songs of Innocence…?

I get why Apple is doing this and abhor those who ever are involved with it but it also makes me wonder how thorough these scans going to be.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t flag ‘types’ of images. It flags duplicates of specific images kept on record by child protection agencies. These are images seized in raids, recovered from crime scenes and discovered by internet monitors. If folks aren’t getting prosecuted for Van Halen ownership already, it seems like a waste of these agencies time to have album art on their database, especially stuff that isn’t even slightly pornographic. what would be the point? But who knows, we’ve had all manner of conspiracies floated here. A Van Halen inquisition wouldn’t be the craziest.
 
GBaughma said:
I fully understand how all of that works. But again, you're forgetting the OTHER part of these new "features"; where if a teen tries to send a nude over iMessage, it identifies it (some sort of image AI), asks them if they REALLY want to send it, and if they say "Yes", it sends it to their parents.

So yes, with that technology in place, there is a lot of opportunity for false positives, or for abuse.

Regardless, I should have an expectation of privacy on a piece of equipment that I purchase.
Click to expand...

That function only works if the parents of the child set it up and Turn it on;
 
Last edited:
GBaughma said:
See, and this is what happens with the "Think of the children!" mindset.
You're blinded by the idea that it's protecting children.
And children *should* be protected.
However, the 4th amendment makes this pretty clear....
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Apple has no business playing the "overwatchers", checking everyone's photos, violating privacy, on the hopes that they catch someone. If the FBI goes to Apple and says "We have a warrant to check this person's pictures", that's fine. Hand them over. But apple should NOT be proactive in scanning and reporting people's photos. They can certainly be reactive.

And I agree with the other posters who said "Scan them before they're stored in iCloud". That's fine. I can get behind that, because Apple doesn't want to be responsible for storing illegal materials. Meanwhile though, my phone drains battery fast enough without background scans of my photos "for the children".
Click to expand...

The ‘Bill of Rights’ says what the government can’t do, it does not apply to private businesses.
 
mw360 said:
It doesn’t flag ‘types’ of images. It flags duplicates of specific images kept on record by child protection agencies. These are images seized in raids, recovered from crime scenes and discovered by internet monitors. If folks aren’t getting prosecuted for Van Halen ownership already, it seems like a waste of these agencies time to have album art on their database, especially stuff that isn’t even slightly pornographic. what would be the point? But who knows, we’ve had all manner of conspiracies floated here. A Van Halen inquisition wouldn’t be the craziest.
Click to expand...

The baby on the Nirvana Nevermind album is suing the band because the photo is equated with child porn in his eyes. I’m not saying he is right/wrong - that’s a discussion for another place - but it does show how things can go to the extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brgjoe
eltoslightfoot said:
This is interesting…private parties searching your device are immune to the 4th amendment.

Case file for OneDrive and PhotoDNA

“The Court denies Bohannon's motion. First, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to Microsoft's search, as Microsoft was not acting as a government entity or agent. Even if the Fourth Amendment applied, Bohannon consented to Microsoft's search by agreeing to Microsoft's terms of service.” United States v. Bohannon, Case No. 19-cr-00039-CRB-1, 5-6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020)
Click to expand...

The constitution says what the government can, and cannot, do. It has never applied to any non government entity. There may be federal, state, and local laws the concern what businesses can do, but not the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot
Glennster said:
The baby on the Nirvana Nevermind album is suing the band because the photo is equated with child porn in his eyes. I’m not saying he is right/wrong - that’s a discussion for another place - but it does show how things can go to the extreme.
Click to expand...
No, it shows how one guy is trying to take things to an extreme. He has no chance of winning because his case is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glennster
mw360 said:
No, it shows how one guy is trying to take things to an extreme. He has no chance of winning because his case is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Bang-on.
The funny thing is a few yrs ago he recreated it the same pic & had no issues with it. I guess now someone is short on shekels & feels it’s a great opportunity to cash in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brgjoe and CasualFanboy
Nick05 said:
The problem is not what it is looking for now, but the concept of being scanned and where it can/will be expanded. I’m sure you don’t do anything illegal in your home, but probably don’t want to have someone come look through it everyday to check.
Click to expand...
But my iPhone already scans my images to be able to identify objects like "dog" or "burger" or whatever despite me never having told it what is in the photos. This feature is more akin to that, than an actual person looking through my home (which of course I would be against).
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bobcomer
ArtyS said:
If you haven't been able to read all the concerns expressed by so many people, then I hate to say it, but, at this point, you're not going to get it. Which says a lot about your critical thinking skills. It's also pretty disgusting to imply that people are pedos just because they don't like what's going on. That just says a lot about you as a person. And it doesn't say anything good at all.
Click to expand...
Oh no, I'm heart broken. /s
 
Robert.Walter said:
But why not better wait for the next incrementally terrible thing that follows the last incrementally terrible thing to be absolutely sure.
Click to expand...
The slippery argument is dumb because it doesn't allow change in any direction, ever.

Higher taxes? Keep this up and soon all our money will be taxed!
Lower taxes? Keep this up and soon there will be no tax revenue at all!
 
thekeyring said:
But my iPhone already scans my images to be able to identify objects like "dog" or "burger" or whatever despite me never having told it what is in the photos. This feature is more akin to that, than an actual person looking through my home (which of course I would be against).
Click to expand...
How many people/agencies does it notify and share the content of these scans of your photo library with? That is the important part your missing. Doing things on device is great but Not when it is designed to share this information which is what these scans can do.
 
My friend was concerned there would be potential for false positives. He's got a little kid but I don't think that a picture of his kid in the bath is not going to trigger this - because the hash is based on known CSAM materials not random pictures of your family bath time. Still, I think this is poorly understood by everyone who has been told about it. I thought that this was only photos being streamed to icloud (photostream?) but others feel it's scanning personal photos on the device that aren't slated for that. Be nice if there was a clear concise faq style document.
 
aliensporebomb said:
My friend was concerned there would be potential for false positives. He's got a little kid but I don't think that a picture of his kid in the bath is not going to trigger this - because the hash is based on known CSAM materials not random pictures of your family bath time. Still, I think this is poorly understood by everyone who has been told about it. I thought that this was only photos being streamed to icloud (photostream?) but others feel it's scanning personal photos on the device that aren't slated for that. Be nice if there was a clear concise faq style document.
Click to expand...
 
DanTSX said:
You have no idea how intertwined these big tech companies are with the surveillance apparatus….

It goes wayyyyy back to AT&T in the USA.

It is definitely a conspiracy, and a real one. Don’t dismiss this as Alex Jones lizard people lunacy.
Click to expand...
Truth. I will never forget when I worked at ATT in Atlanta I would go for walks testing phones... I was messing around with Google Maps and noticed how the ATT building with the ATT President’s office was labeled on the map. That was an ATT campus building.
 

Attachments

  • C5755A7F-6707-4C2A-907E-71DF3C833D11.jpeg
    C5755A7F-6707-4C2A-907E-71DF3C833D11.jpeg
    630.6 KB · Views: 60
Investigating a person vs investigating a crime.
Topfry said:
Exactly - its not the role of a product company to monitor or surveille its customers’ private data. Think of all the non illegal, yet private information/photos, that a third party at apple will review. Its a a well intentioned mis-step, but a mis-step nonetheless.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back