Apple's Proposed Phone-Scanning Child Safety Features 'Invasive, Ineffective, and Dangerous,' Say Cybersecurity Researchers in New Study

[Channan]

registered child abuse images/videos are not "everything". Surely this is agreeable, if not I think we have very very different thresholds of what’s acceptable in society (and I doubt you have children).

I get the slippery slope argument, but maybe a bit more nuance would be helpful. All the mean while, my phone is happily scanning and analyzing my entire photo library looking for beaches, cats, and dogs. if a nefarious government wants to get that data, the only thing apple can do is not sell phones in their jurisdiction.

edit: btw non of the above means I am "all for" Apple’s planned measures, but I absolutely do believe something can and should be done to curb proliferation of this horrible stuff.

You say you get the slippery slope argument, but your very next sentence suggests you don’t actually get it. It’s not about what it’s scanning for now. It’s about what it could be used for in the future.

Also, regarding your edit, nobody here is saying nothing should be done about CSAM. I think most people would agree that it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. The majority of us here just believe Apple’s method is not the way it should be handled.

 

[Shirasaki]

Ha ha i see a got a lot of negative comments which is fair enough, but why? what is it you are thinking? you know half the population will be thinking there is only one reason to object?

If you still dont get why we think that way, then you are living in the grim future that everyone else in this thread is afraid of. Good for you.
Just leave the door open and tell everyone your password etc.

 

[Varda]

CSAM scanning definitely destroys privacy. Apple was and is always for privacy. If apple implements this, it will go against its core values. Hopefully apple will reconsider its decision regarding CSAM

If Apple "is always for privacy" than they would not be implementing this iSpyware in the first place.

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

Apple did this to themselves. I don’t even know what Apple is trying to achieve or what they’re goal is

 

[WaterOz]

Isnt this already a reality, it’s just they are tightening the grip?

True. Maybe further into the “person of interest” show ideas which I realize are already at least partially there (or fully there and we just don’t know all of it)

 

[UKitsme]

I can understand how you could think that a casual forum user was misinformed. But you think that a dozen prominent cybersecurity experts in an independent study, not to mention privacy advocates, security researchers, cryptography experts, academics, politicians, and even employees within the company are all also wrong? Please expand - do you think all of these separate entities are uneducated or have something to gain?

Thank you, no i am just trying to understand, what basically was their "fear" or logic then?

 

[WaterOz]

Also, for those of you switching to Android… really? Google only sells every little thing about you. The response to Apple getting less private so you’re going to android rings hollow.
I think your choice is a flip phone. Or perhaps the Linux phone I saw someone talking about. But going to Android just means you only care about throwing a fit about Apple, not that actually care about any privacy.
(And I’m throwing stones at my glass house… I use a lot of google products)

 

[trainwrecka]

all my devices were locked from auto updating after this announcement was made. This will be abused, I’m not taking part in it.

 

[bsolar]

Ha ha i see a got a lot of negative comments which is fair enough, but why? what is it you are thinking? you know half the population will be thinking there is only one reason to object?

I have provided you in my reply a factual refutation of an objectively wrong statement of yours (that Apple's technology would analyze images on Apple's servers) and an explanation plus link to an article about the "nothing to hide" argument which should provide you plenty of opportunities to learn more about why the argument is dangerous.

Especially the "nothing to hide" argument and "think of the children" appeal are actually very worrying when used to rationalize measures that impact freedom and privacy.

The reason these arguments are dangerous is that history provides a very clear track record of these arguments being used to spearhead measures that ultimately don't actually have much of real positive impact, but end up compromising freedom and privacy for everyone.

 

[jonnysods]

We need more articles like these to stop the gaslighting when us mere mortals express concern over these features being suggested by Apple.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Personally, i’m with Apple on this one. The fewer child molesters and predators on the streets, the better. I worked with a guy who seemed normal until we found out he was arrested for child porn and he even had blowup dolls to look like children. The fewer of these scumbags taking advantage of little kids the better for society.

Welcome to the 21st century folks where George Orwell’s book 1984 has become prophetic. So no, Apple isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary despite all the criticism because in our day and age, we are being given an illusion of freedoms and privacy. There’s little of that today, just ask the NSA.

 

[UKitsme]

Lol, “ how can you object when it helps children?” they Started to screw pacifying techs in our brain- “how can you object when it helps children?” This crap reminds of when a bunch of scientists (researchers) who wanted to put a bunch of children on a watchlist because their brain scans were similar to serial killers. It would probably save lives but it will destroy so many childhoods in the name of safety.
”do u have something to hide?”
everybody does this is why we have a pasword lock on ou phone, beside it’s not scanning on a server but on the phone itself. your ability to have a personal live unknown by CORPOS is a natural aspect of life that those tech companies refuse to understand. I don’t mind the proper investigation of the FBI, or the police against offenders. Governments needs to stop fooling people by leaving the illegal spying , and collection of data to 3rd party tech companies. collecting them afterwards , and then pretending that they Are not violating our privacy. As a side note (politicians) should be expert - or at least tech savvy To make meaningful laws that protect people. The same way apple should at least have a branch to prepare for the eventual demands by other governments. Not just Tim CO with whatever PR statement they told him to use.
we (at least “ I “) just want it to be done the right way. I am not against making it harder for this kind of contents to be shared.

Thanks 1284814, i was just asking, we are not talking about brain scan watchlists isn't that you scare mongering?
Yes, i don't want people to know my bank details but what is their on photographs you are concerned about, i'm not being judgemental just asking
as for scaning devices i thought this was the position "Yes, stopping iOS 15 from scanning your photos is rather straightforward. All you have to do is stop uploading your photos to iCloud and you are good to go. Apple has confirmed that the check is performed only if you have opted to upload your photos to iCloud"

 

[RightsOfBill]

Also, for those of you switching to Android… really? Google only sells every little thing about you. The response to Apple getting less private so you’re going to android rings hollow.
I think your choice is a flip phone. Or perhaps the Linux phone I saw someone talking about. But going to Android just means you only care about throwing a fit about Apple, not that actually care about any privacy.
(And I’m throwing stones at my glass house… I use a lot of google products)

Search (DuckDuckGo, not Google) “GrapheneOS”.

 

[UKitsme]

What if you buy a car and then the car company installs a device to alert the police if you are speeding or if they randomly search your car for drug/alcohol and then notifies police if they find something. They are then just an arm of the police without the restraints. After all, this is in the name of safety.
What about after buying a house, would you be okay if the builder randomly inspects it to check for anything illegal? What if they discover you have been smoking in the house and you have children? Call the police in the name of child safety.

but Raebo we are not talking about speeding devices or building inspections apple just want to check photo libraries to see if certian images are there. if someone proposes speed devices lets debet that then by the way they already exist, they call them speed cameras over here :-(

 

[WriteNow]

Also, for those of you switching to Android… really? Google only sells every little thing about you. The response to Apple getting less private so you’re going to android rings hollow.

True, although some would say: "I no longer feel I can trust Apple privacy at all, so why not buy a cheaper Android phone?"

I think your choice is a flip phone.

Flip phones today often have Google software of some kind. So I'd say those are problematic for those wanting privacy.

Or perhaps the Linux phone I saw someone talking about.

Linux phones are interesting, but from what I've heard, they aren't quite usable enough yet.

The most viable smart phone choice right now is probably a deGoogled Android phone.

 

[sullixan]

If someone has already said this, my apologies.....

But this is just classic "create an issue" to "protect humans". Call me a conspiracy theorist, but things like 9/11, the TSA was created. Where we are searched as if every last one of us are terrorists. We must suffer due to an event that had nothing to do with us. There are documents, upon documents stating 9/11 was controlled demolition, including engineers, on record stating buildings do not fall like the 3 towers. Yes 3 buildings fell that day, the third was building 7. Since 9/11, we have lost the fourth amendment, every time we travel and the Patriot Act was created.

I can name 100s of events that took place, where the consumer, the regular person, has to have a right taken away, or mass surveilled due to one person who decided to attack or destroy something or someone. Whether or not it was real, fake or planned, the pedos who have been using iCloud to store child sexual abuse photos, will go somewhere else! Then it will leave this service to BE ABUSED BY LOCAL, FOREIGN AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS! That leaves the average, non-pedo consumer like you an I with devices that at random can be scanned.

Look, I get it, youll say, "bro, they can scan our phones now." True. But if they scanned our phones now, it wouldn't be permissible in court if they tried to convict us.

1. "The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has protected us from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government for over two centuries.........whether defendants are being prosecuted in state or federal courts – is that a defendant can only be convicted based upon evidence which has been lawfully searched for and seized by law enforcement. Even if illegally seized evidence clearly shows a defendant’s guilt in committing a crime, that defendant cannot be lawfully convicted of a crime based on that evidence."

Now, once you freely give Apple the opportunity to scan your photos on iCloud, 4th amendment, ONCE AGAIN IS TAKEN AWAY. In steps the government, to work with Apple. Which they have done before! Look up Bill Barr & San Bernardino.

END THIS NOW APPLE. WE ARE NOT TERRORISTS &/or PEDOS!

 

[bsolar]

but Raebo we are not talking about speeding devices or building inspections apple just want to check photo libraries to see if certian images are there. if someone proposes speed devices lets debet that then by the way they already exist, they call them speed cameras over here :-(

Once the technology is there it would be trivial to extend it to other use cases, either because Apple decides that independently or because some government compels Apple to do so.

There is a reason these things need to be stopped at the beginning: it becomes very difficult to repel these things once they are enacted even if later it turns out the measure doesn't actually help much in catching more criminals and end up being abused to violate law-abiding users' privacy instead.

 

[SpotOnT]

Thank you, no i am just trying to understand, what basically was their "fear" or logic then?

Have you read any of the articles referenced for you? I feel like the NYTimes, WaPo, various researchers have written a lot about this. It might help if you comment on some specific aspect of their fear that is not making sense or doesn't seem reasonable to you.

Personally, I have two main problems. 1) I don't think it is reasonable for someone to search my personal property without a warrant or without probable cause. The dangers of this seem so obvious to me, I am not sure where to even start. But I am clearly not alone in this sentiment, as this protection is included in the Fourth Amendment.

2) Apple is planning to use a hash to check for a match when scanning your phone, Mac, etc. Anything can be in those hashes, as required by local law. The EU lawmakers mentioned searching for organized crime and terrorist. That likely means they want to search your devices to see if you know anyone from a list of suspected criminals/terrorists, so they can create a social network. Similarly governments could search for networks associated with reporters, activists, or even ex-romantic partners, spouses etc. Just look at who is using the NSO Group spyware and for what. Or the lengths Trump went through to try and identify news leaks. In short anything any government wants can be searched. Apple will have to search your devices for those items or exit the market of that country. I don't see Apple leaving the EU, China etc.

 

[antiprotest]

I just don’t see how Apple thinks this is even feasible. How do they expect to ignore the laws of a local government?

The whole idea of scanning content locally on someone’s phone is a terrible idea that will eventually be abused.

Apple caves on a lot of stuff. They simply cannot make this guarantee.

 

[antiprotest]

I've said it before and say it again, Apple will abandon this monstrosity, if they don't they will get a huge backlash.

I hope you are right, but I think Apple has already made up their mind. They will not listen to customers or security experts. This will definitely happen in a matter of months. The backlash will blow over, as almost all things do, although Apple will forever be tainted in many people's eyes. Let's see who's right!

 

[TVreporter]

The intentions are admirable but the execution and rollout have been a PR disaster.

I’m sure someone got canned for it.

Perhaps this will go the way of AirPower - pretend it never happened.

 

[Waxhead138]

Plenty of common sense replies on both sides of this argument.

However, I don't think it will come down to any common sense decision, sad to say. If this thing launches, which I still think is a big IF, it will have a very short shelf life and here is why: (IMO of course)

The first time(s) some parent has police knock on their door, or they get arrested, over some innocent picture they took of their toddler in the bath or something of the like. Siri can't even properly procure Thunderstorm noises when I request it. Think this service will be able to (100%) tell the difference between explicit abuse of minors vs. innocent pictures? I don't.

A lawsuit or two will end this service if it launches. Morality will be cast aside (no matter what side you prefer here) in order to save $$$.

 

[SpotOnT]

Plenty of common sense replies on both sides of this argument.

However, I don't think it will come down to any common sense decision, sad to say. If this thing launches, which I still think is a big IF, it will have a very short shelf life and here is why: (IMO of course)

The first time(s) some parent has police knock on their door, or they get arrested, over some innocent picture they took of their toddler in the bath or something of the like. Siri can't even properly procure Thunderstorm noises when I request it. Think this service will be able to (100%) tell the difference between explicit abuse of minors vs. innocent pictures? I don't.

A lawsuit or two will end this service if it launches. Morality will be cast aside (no matter what side you prefer here) in order to save $$$.

So that is not how Apple's proposed system works. It does not look for nudity (the way AI looks for nudity on Facebook for example). Using AI to identify nudity is still seriously flawed and the list of things that get banned is hilarious (like a photo of a bowl of fruit for example).

This system will only look for matches of known child pornagraphy. So if you make a film of child abuse - it will not be flagged by Apple as this image/video has not yet been viewed and entered into the database of known child pornagraphy. If you never share this video on the internet, it will probably never enter the database and never be flagged by Apple.

That is one of the main problems with this system. By the time a photo enters the database, those who abused/filmed the child are long gone. So in the end you don't actually catch anyone abusing children. You just catch those sickos who want to watch the stuff. Is that better than nothing? Perhaps. But I would rather have a system that actually catches the people abusing the kid so they can never do it again.

 

[Shirasaki]

Thank you, no i am just trying to understand, what basically was their "fear" or logic then?

"fear" is we cant trust government to not misuse those tools for nefarious purposes. Government is still run by humans, and by nature, humans can hurt other humans. Worse, those humans arent your parents, guardians etc which will not put your interest in their mind first, and your consequence matters little for them.

We may not trust the tool, but what we really have no trust in is people who are going to use those tools. Blame human being human. We aren't much advanced as MSM wants us to believe during primary school education.

 

[nt5672]

I've said it before and say it again, Apple will abandon this monstrosity, if they don't they will get a huge backlash.

Not if it is being required by the government. I think Apple is either stupid or between a rock and hard place. Ok, I don't think Apple is that stupid on strategy.

So that only leaves that the US government is trying to force Apple to do this so they can have Apple scan for whatever the government wants. The CIA and NSA think they are smart enough to fool iPhone users into giving up more freedom to save the children. After all they have done it so many times before, why should this be any different.

And from the looks of the idiots here at MacRumors that want this scanning to save the children I think we are all in trouble.

The last resort for Apple is to implement it secretly and hope for the best. There is a reason there have not been any recent FBI blowups about Apple security. It has been resolved by a National Security Letter that Apple can neither ignore or talk about.

One way or another, Apple is losing the battle about protecting users, unless users stand up.