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.
Craig Federighi Acknowledges Confusion Around Apple Child Safety Features and Explains New Details About Safeguards
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I go to a ballgame and they search me. Thats ok. I dont let then come to my house and search me before the game
Yea how on earth could Apple take a stance against child pornography. Pictures of abused 5 year olds are great /s
Yep, you're still wrong. Where you're going wrong is using an appeal to emotion to justify the insertion of the capability to scan and report on all of the data on anyone's phone prior to any of it being uploaded to a cloud service. Until now the capability has not existed. Apple could refuse authority on the basis that it was impossible.
Now they can't refuse on that basis. Apple has already capitulated to government demands in at least a couple of countries. Some of our own less-enlightened politicians have already demanded backdoors to iCloud encryption so the will is definitely there. Apple, and other tech companies can already be prohibited from alerting a user that their data has been subject to a warrant. Now the capability exists for an authority to not only demand more data, but also prohibit Apple from telling anyone that the data is being gathered. You may not hear about the next step down the "slippery slope" you intend to deal with on a case-by-case basis.
"Won't somebody think of the children" is not an excuse to wreck privacy for everyone no matter what kind of warm fuzzy feeling it gives you.
You act like Apple can refuse to obey a law. They can’t.
The goal isn’t to stop the abuse, no system can. The goal is to keep Apple’s immunity from liability intact. It’s a reasonable goal as that’s what the law requires
False. There is no such law. In fact, 230 exempts them from liability.
Last edited:
There is no liability.
The post service doesn't have to open every letter and parcel to look if something bad is inside.
This is what happens when you decide the next growth driver of the company isn't going to be another insanely great product but s**t-tier services. Hardware becomes a means to an end, not an end itself. Today it's spying on us to "protect the children", tomorrow it can be targeted ads (but we do our machine-learning algorithms to track you on-device, so your privacy is protected!!). San Bernardino happened in 2015, peak iPhone for Apple, the year of iPhone 6 sales. The services push happened around 2016. Services companies don't care about privacy.
You seem to be hung up about privacy = secrecy from everyone. Even if privacy is a fundamental right it needs to be balanced with other rights. I believe this is also Apple's view.
iCloud (Photo Library) is Apple's property. They have the right to control and use it the way the want to. Just like you have with your property.
They have offered you the privilege to use their property under certain criteria. Among those are a privacy policy. When privacy is important to you, it is important to read the privacy policy you have agreed to and which governs the company you are dealing with.
You should read it.
"Apple uses personal data to power our services, to process your transactions, to communicate with you, for security and fraud prevention, and to comply with law. We may also use personal data for other purposes with your consent."
"We may also process your personal data where we believe it is in our or others’ legitimate interests, taking into consideration your interests, rights, and expectations."
"Others. Apple may share personal data with others at your direction or with your consent, such as when we share information with your carrier to activate your account. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate. We may also disclose information about you where there is a lawful basis for doing so, if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or to protect our operations or users, or in the event of a reorganization, merger, or sale.
Now over to what you agreed with Apple when they gave you the privilege to use iCloud:
"Changing the Service. Apple reserves the right at any time to modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional terms or conditions on your use of the Service, provided that Apple will give you 30 days’ advance notice of any material adverse change to the Service or applicable terms of service"
"You understand and agree that your use of the Service and any Content is solely at your own risk."
"However, Apple reserves the right at all times to determine whether Content is appropriate and in compliance with this Agreement, and may screen, move, refuse, modify and/or remove Content at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, if such Content is found to be in violation of this Agreement or is otherwise objectionable."
These are legal contracts in the US and you should not enter into them if you don't agree to them. But even more importantly it tells you how Apple looks at privacy.
Wrong.
The Exceptions to Section 230: How Have the Courts Interpreted Section 230?
Courts have generally interpreted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act broadly, but they have identified some limits for when the law does not provide immunity from liability.
Wrong.
The Exceptions to Section 230: How Have the Courts Interpreted Section 230?
Courts have generally interpreted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act broadly, but they have identified some limits for when the law does not provide immunity from liability.
I'm not against it, but it wouldn't help those people who are principled against it.
Apple could reveal the source, then just change it, and start using a different version of it and it would be very hard to know.
The first part in the NeuralHash is probably using the neural engine hardware. So you have to trust the hardware to do what the designer says. Who is the designer of the hardware? Apple.
Also, iCloud Backup is a much better feature to misuse for governments. Why not demand they open source that part also?
What I am reacting to is the demand for open sourcing a part of the OS which is ill-suited to do surveillance and not asking it for those parts which are truly great for such surveillance.
What Apple is doing is they announce that every iPhone user is a suspected child molester. Is that a good image?
I mean, just think about how the People will look at you soon using an Apple product. Everybody will assume you are one of "those". Probably won't take long and people attack people who take out their iPhone when children are around.
I will use a different phone in public. Showing the iPerv ain't cool!
I mean, just think about how the People will look at you soon using an Apple product. Everybody will assume you are one of "those". Probably won't take long and people attack people who take out their iPhone when children are around.
I will use a different phone in public. Showing the iPerv ain't cool!
So countless of examples of exploited mass surveillance systems are no rational basis? Only considering things for which there is concrete evidence is precisely being naive. This isn't about proving anything, it's about ethics.
Security researchers will see how it compares the hash in real time, no need for open source. They’ll be able to see if it’s being used for other purposes or compared to other databases
There is no expectation of privacy for data that resides on a third party server. People using iCloud never should have had that expectation with regard to illicit materials ... child abuse materials or otherwise. I think you really do misunderstand the service Apple is providing to users ... in some cases a free service. As you state, Apple is required to respond to warrants and subpoenas. Apple cannot decline to respond to such lawful requests because you think it is technologically impossible to do ... especially when it is quite technologically possible in fact. IMHO.
In the video interview on the wall street journal page the Apple Representative stated that it took 30 suspected photo's of CSAM material to trigger a manual review. My question is why that number is so high? I am wondering if Apple's CSAM system has a high false positive rate for that number to be so high. In addition does that counter ever reset after a period of time?
They have come up with a reasonable way to keep illegal content off of their platform, without Apple violating privacy. It’s all done on device and Apple isn’t notified until there are 30 positive hits. That’s a reasonable compromise for privacy vs the rights of children to be safe from exploitation
Haha, there it is: "Pfft. It's not us who is wrong! The public just needs it dumbed down and explained better!"
What concerns me is the high number. Since that could indicate their system has a high false positivity rate for it to be set at 30.