Apple had claimed to be different.
This will end in tears.
This will end in tears.
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
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.itif.org
Wrong. Did you even bother to read this link? It clearly says courts have trended toward exceptions to 230 only when the provider “induced” or “encouraged” the illegal content.
The law requires Apple to make a good faith effort to root out child pornography. That’s to maintain 230 liability immunity. Your case would get laughed out of court
The list of things that are so awful is so long..
I just don't fundamentally believe in sacrificing personal privacy on device in this way -- for everyone -- in hopes of maybe catching some bad things.
That's a game this is literally never won, short of a totalitarian state.
Wrong. Anyone who doesn’t make a good faith effort to inform users about illegal content can be stripped of their liability shield. Turning a blind eye is a form of encouragement. There’s already precedent for this
Part of the reason ongoing cases of absue exist is that victims are shamed by cultural norms which shun sex. Consequently, sexual abuse goes unreported. Things like not saying what it is. "child sex abuse" is censored or replaced with "friendly" acronyms like "CSAM" which don't make people quite as uncomfortable.
As a society, we don't help when we do things like this. Call a spade a spade.
It is called child sexual abuse.
I guess Apple's employees who are hired to review these possible CSAM images will find out if that number is high enough to prevent false positives.
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 again. The Postal Service is exempt from ALL content sent through the mail.
please keep screaming. this has to NOT GO AWAY. however long it takes. if it takes to iOS16 or infinity and beyond.
Apple WAS the becon of a free Digital world. where you the the richest guard dog in the world. now they are a branch of law enforcement with sights on everyone by default being sketchy. no thanks. I hope I am one of MANY MANY MANY who actually do something about it.
I know this week this happened for me:
iMessage was turned off
iCloud photos turned off
all Siri functions turned off
duckduckgo became my default browser
I lowered my TB tier to free for icloud
I signed up for proton mail and made it default
I signed up for proton VPN (turned on)
I signed up for signal
I sent link to all these apps and services to every one of my friends and family members. so far I have about 40% of those people who have at least adopted and installed.
the churn may be slow, but I am going to do everything I can do divest and encourage everyone around me to do the same. this situation is unacceptable. and I am a shareholder! it is going to be really hard to do this, and I am not happy I feel like I need to. but we need to stand up as a collective whole for the future. "won't somebody think of the kids" there is more to the future than stopping CSAM
I hope they take a hit and walk back. will I'm not going to drop my perfectly good phone, I will move hardware next time if they don't walk back.
my privacy from snooping is paramount, not because I have anything sketchy, but in principle.
That's interesting - I didn't know that.
So with tech companies and new standard has been chosen?
And as said before, because everyone else is doing it (supposedly), that makes it okay, rght? 🙄
People selected Apple / iPhone because Apple said they were not doing this sort of thing.
Now Apple is doing this sort of thing and people are upset. How is this confusing to you?
How is the government supposed to know if you’re doing anything illegal unless then can routinely search your house?
It’s called first getting PROBABLE CAUSE then conducting an INVESTIGATION and then getting permission from a JUDGE to violate your rights. What country do you think this is?
Remember how Apple of recent is trying to stop leaks coming from Apple. There's been news coverage on it. I believe this is not really about product leaks. Sure they hurt Apple but the free advertising from them also helps Apple.
I believe the leak prevention work Apple has done of recent is more about preventing leaks of the shady stuff Apple is doing, like CSAM searching. Apple do not ant us to know stuff like this till it is too late for us to stop it.
I believe the leak prevention work Apple has done of recent is more about preventing leaks of the shady stuff Apple is doing, like CSAM searching. Apple do not ant us to know stuff like this till it is too late for us to stop it.
Wrong. Anyone who doesn’t make a good faith effort to inform users about illegal content is
What Section 230 Is and Does -- Yet Another Explanation of One of the Internet's Most Important Laws
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes internet platforms from any liability as a publisher or speaker for third-party
www.publicknowledge.org
While the amount of children who are sexually abused is way too high (and the only acceptable number is zero), the number you quoted is waaay to high: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens
Secondly, most people do not abuse kids. We do not search everyone's home because some people commit crimes, you need a warrant. The same should apply to our online data.
Thirdly, the rise of the internet has made it exponentially easier to share CSAM. Whatever Apple catches with their system will unfortunately only be a drop in the bucket. Has anyone proven that cloud providers scanning everyone's photos for known CSAM actually decreases child abuse and creation of CSAM, rather than merely catching already known images? Apple has been happy to explain why their NeuralHash system makes everything OK, but they haven't explained if their system will actually decrease child abuse.
Fourthly, Apple says the threshold is 30 photos need to match. That means if Apple has 29 images that match the hash, making them extraordinarily likely to be CSAM, Apple will just leave them up on their servers? That sounds all kinds of illegal, or Apple's algorithm is truly s**t.
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s like “guilty until proven innocent.” My how Apple is stepping off the path here.
But I still want to know Who? Who at Apple came up with this bloody idea and how did this come about?
The FOSTA-SESTA legislation made clear that content hosts MUST screen for child pornography
see this link for explanation:
www.publicknowledge.org
see this link for explanation:
What Section 230 Is and Does -- Yet Another Explanation of One of the Internet's Most Important Laws
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes internet platforms from any liability as a publisher or speaker for third-party
www.publicknowledge.org
A few others have hit on it in here.
I think they’re just trying to take the easiest way to get law-enforcement off their back
It is a little bit startling how often Apple is “surprised“ by the reaction to their moves in the last couple years. They seem to have quite the internal echo chamber.
Translation… An exceptional amount of hubris
FALSE. No such law. They only have to not ENCOURAGE it or PARTICIPATE in it.
False. See FOSTA-SESTA legislation
From the legal analysis:
“Additionally, FOSTA-SESTAputs further conditions on the applicability of 230, and platforms very much are legally required to remove child pornography.”
What Section 230 Is and Does -- Yet Another Explanation of One of the Internet's Most Important Laws
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes internet platforms from any liability as a publisher or speaker for third-party
www.publicknowledge.org