exactly right.
It’s stunning to me that people are suddenly defending searching through users stuff for things that are illegal
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
exactly right.
It’s stunning to me that people are suddenly defending searching through users stuff for things that are illegal
Isn't it just grand how misinformed people are that they are now making laws up on the fly to defend their beloved Apple?
Completely false. There is no such provision in 230 requiring to police private content. If that were true, they would have to scan everything from email to the Address Book.
That user is wrong. See FOSTA-SESTA clarification on 230 immunity:
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
Quit spewing your false garbage. Read this legal analysis of 230, that includes FOSTA-SESTA’s clarification on 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
Wrong again. Encryption is broken at the point the iPhone sends photos to iCloud, and then to employees for investigation.
How would you use the CSAM detection to do this?
Please provide details since you seem so sure it's easy.
photos being uploaded to iCloud aren’t end to end encrypted to begin with. You can’t break what isn’t there. I was speaking about messages
Makes no difference. That encryption method is not secure.
You don't create the key.
Data can be recovered without the key.
I’m not arguing security. Someone made the claim that apple is weakening encryption. That is false. They aren’t altering any encryption whatsoever
When scanning your device is normalized, the CSAM methods aren't needed.
Why is everyone stuck on CSAM detectopm as being the problem here. It's not.
You can keep claiming this ad nauseum and it will never make it true. There is NO SUCH LAW and NO SUCH REQUIREMENT in Section 230.
The system is not designed to catch illegal images. It's incredible bad at catching most illegal images out there.
The scanning is only done if you have decided to store those images on Apple's property (iCloud).
Did you read up on FOSTA-SESTA like I advised? You’ll learn something.
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
If Apple is doing this to keep their immunity they should have announced that fact and with these changes Apple needs to make iCloud Photos storage opt in not opt out.
Well I don´t like the perceived privacy invasion, and what they can/will do in the future. Whilst I think child abusers should be executed, I don´t like the new situation, which is almost guilty until proved innocent. I have put up with iOS and iPad OS restrictions (some of which are commercial rather than security related), as I thought iOS was much more secure than Android. Next week I will be attempting to install /e/OS on an Android phone to test. If its good, I will not be getting an iPhone 13 Max (had 5,5S,6 Plus, 6S Plus, 8 Plus, XS Max (Last 4 top of the range ram), I was also looking at getting a larger iMac M2 when released, to replace my 27 iMac, but am unlikely to do that now.
I was all in at one point - iPhones, Apple watches, iPads, Apple TVs, iMacs etc. Really gone off Apple now. I can understand Apple protecting themselves, by not allowing questionable material on iCloud, but to snoop on customer devices. not good.
I was all in at one point - iPhones, Apple watches, iPads, Apple TVs, iMacs etc. Really gone off Apple now. I can understand Apple protecting themselves, by not allowing questionable material on iCloud, but to snoop on customer devices. not good.
Very nicely and succinctly put.
Normalizing the practice of on device scanning for "things" is the problem.
Texas Supreme Court Says Facebook Can Be Held Liable For Child Sex Trafficking On Its Platform - Biometrica Systems, Inc.
By a Biometrica staffer In a move likely may have a far-reaching ripple effect, on Friday, June 25, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Facebook can be held responsible for its users engaging in illegal sex trafficking activities on the site, regardless of protections offered to the company in...
The FOSTA-SESTA legislation made clear that content hosts MUST screen for child pornography
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
The SESTA amendment to 230 specifically uses these words: it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support.
If you don’t look at your customers’ photos, you can’t KNOWINGLY be doing anything wrong.
The problem is if Apple turns a blind eye to it they can be held legally liable. I do not like the fact that the scanning is done on device but it is Apple's legal team that is most likely protecting the company's shareholders from a lawsuit that hurts their investment.
Correct. Courts are interpreting FOSTA-SESTA to require content hosts to make good faith efforts to scan for child pornography
I am not trying to scream. I am trying first to understand, and Apple's explanations have been very glib and abstract. I do think, however, that even if their system works as advertised they have truly opened Pandora's Box. Sometimes a demonstration of feasibility is all it takes to convince authoritarian governments to abuse technology. If Apple's systems is a secure as they claim, what prevents governments from coercing Apple and others for operating systems that detect other forms of content (flags, memes, faces of gay people, etc.)? Nothing, regrettably.
One more thing, I think both in the US and the UK anti-privacy legislation has gotten a free ride since 9/11. The issue not just about Apple but surveillance per se in a world where mobile device will have enough computing power to have rudimentary AI, and sophisticated AI when linked to other machines online. It's time we evaluate whether our laws are strong enough to protect privacy. IMO they aren't.