German Politician Asks Apple CEO Tim Cook to Abandon CSAM Scanning Plans

[Mydel]

I have principles too, such as sticking with logic and not making baseless accusations or insinuations against people or companies without evidence.

Thats not baseless by any means. Its a fact announced by Apple. They will run the scanning on device. period

It's not a "PR blurb" - it's their explanation of how the technology works. What's your concrete evidence that they're lying? Is everything Apple puts out for public consumption a lie, or do you just randomly choose which bits to label as such?

Its a blurb. Im not IT guy but I do bioinformatics. There is no way to draw the conclusions based on their general statements of 1 in trillion. Its a blurb...

 

[usagora]

Thats not baseless by any means. Its a fact announced by Apple. They will run the scanning on device. period

Obviously I'm not referring to that; I'm referring to people's insinuations or outright accusations that Apple is doing this for some nefarious reasons or accusations that they don't care about privacy when the whole point of this is to make the scanning as private as possible (because Apple doesn't have access to your device to monitor scans).

Its a blurb. Im not IT guy but I do bioinformatics. There is no way to draw the conclusions based on their general statements of 1 in trillion. Its a blurb...

Again, they're simply stating the facts. If you have solid evidence that contradicts their claims, bring it forward and cite your sources (which hopefully won't be some random blog article by a guy who claims he's an expert).

 

[furious]

We will find out in the future this feature was requested by China and all iCloud data will flow through China owned severed. 😂 scary as ****.

baseless obviously- we will find in the future this request was made by the Chinese government to leave the manufacturing of iPhones in China, China will supply cost effective (slave) labour to apple

 

[Mydel]

Obviously I'm not referring to that; I'm referring to people's insinuations or outright accusations that Apple is doing this for some nefarious reasons or accusations that they don't care about privacy when the whole point of this is to make the scanning as private as possible (because Apple doesn't have access to your device to monitor scans).

We have different definitions of private. For me private means that only I decide who can see my stuff. If for you private means that you allowing the for profit company scan your photos than CSAM is super private. I also think it is opening the flood doors that will be impossible to close down the road. So in my mind it is the invasion of privacy. Again...want to do it_ do it on your server not my device.

Again, they're simply stating the facts. If you have solid evidence that contradicts their claims, bring it forward and cite your sources (which hopefully won't be some random blog article by a guy who claims he's an expert).

The problem is they are not. The fact has to be supported by data and observations. They do not offer neither

 

[usagora]

We have different definitions of private. For me private means that only I decide who can see my stuff. If for you private means that you allowing the for profit company scan your photos than CSAM is super private. I also think it is opening the flood doors that will be impossible to close down the road. So in my mind it is the invasion of privacy. Again...want to do it_ do it on your server not my device.

You're not understanding the process. First of all, if you're concerned about people seeing your stuff, you should never use ANY cloud service to store or backup your files. If you don't use iCloud to store your photos, then no scan takes place (because the only purpose of hte scan is to prevent CSAM from being stored/distribtued on Apple's servers). Secondly, if you DO want to use iCloud for photos, then you give your consent for the scanning process. However, Apple never sees one bit of the data from the scan process unless you have 30+ illegal images flagged. And as they stated, given the nature of the technology they're using, the chances of that happening by mistake are less than 1 in 1 trillion per year.

The problem is they are not. The fact has to be supported by data and observations. They do not offer neither

That's not how it works. You don't get to accuse people of lying and then refuse to provide evidence to back up your accusation based on the person you're accusing not having provided evidence that they're telling the truth. That's what we call a cop-out. If you want to say you're undecided or would like to see more evidence, then fine. But if you're going to accuse someone (or some company) of dishonesty, then you better have your facts straight.

 

[jseymour]

You know that this is all about being trustworthy? Hard to gain and easy to loose - once lost, gone forever.

This ^^^^^

We moved to the Apple ecosystem primarily because I trusted Apple would safeguard our privacy. With this, that trust is gone. Since I can no longer trust Apple any more than I used to trust Google, there's no longer any reason to endure Apple's shackles. So we'll be moving back to Android as our devices require replacement or when this spyware is forced upon us, whichever comes first.

The only thing I'll truly miss is my Apple Watch.

Classic-liberal. Not libertarian.

There's not a lot of difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism.

I believe they are legally required to search for it being a cloud storage provider.

They are not. The relevant law has been cited twice in this thread and in several other threads. I can hunt it down and cite it again, if you wish.

Some of you guys would make GREAT logic textbook writers - if your only job was to provide example sentences of slippery slope fallacies.

Except slippery slope is not a logical (aka: "formal") fallacy. Slippery slope is only fallacious if based upon incorrect statements or a misuse of evidence. We already have evidence of technology individuals had every right to expect was established for their benefit being use to benefit others, so slippery slope is a perfectly valid argument in this context. You may not find it convincing, but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[usagora]

Except slippery slope is not a logical (aka: "formal") fallacy. Slippery slope is only fallacious if based upon incorrect statements or a misuse of evidence. We already have evidence of technology individuals had every right to expect was established for their benefit being use to benefit others, so slippery slope is a perfectly valid argument in this context. You may not find it convincing, but that doesn't make it wrong.

No, both formal and informal fallacies are logical fallacies. It's just the former has to do with the structure ("form") of the argument, whereas the latter has to do with the content of the premises. "Formal" in this context doesn't mean "official" (as if only formal fallacies are truly logical fallacies).

Yes, of course there are examples of technology that purported to do one (desirable) thing but actually did another (undesirable) thing purposely/deceptively . . . or started out innocent and turned sinister. But the percentage of those cases isn't some exremely high percentage (so as to make it nearly inevitable), nor does Apple has a track record of that sort of thing, so to apply the slippery slope argument to this case is irrational. Now it's POSSIBLE that all these bad things people are predicting will come to pass, but that doesn't change the fact that their reasoning is fallacious.

Take an unrelated example to help you understand. We have tons of examples throughout history of people coming into large sums of money, then giving into greed or other vices and ruining their life. So do we then argue that no one (including reputable people) should inherit/win/earn over a certain amount of money because, "Oh sure, they say they'll use it for good, but before you know it, they'll be bankrupt, their marriage will be destroyed and their kids will hate them"? That's fallacious reasoning because it assumes that just because many people are irresponsible, that any given individual person must also be irresponsible. Now, if you could demonstrate that an extremely high percentage (note: percentage, not number) of people succomb to this fate as a direct result of money, then your slippery slope argument could be considered to have some validity in that context. But that's not the case.

 

[jseymour]

No, both formal and informal fallacies are logical fallacies.

Sorry, but no. There are many cites available, but this may be one of the easiest to understand:

In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument. A deductive argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally valid, but still remain rationally unpersuasive. Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both deductive and non-deductive arguments.

Though the form of the argument may be relevant, fallacies of this type are the "types of mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting the argument".

Ref: Informal fallacy
(Note: emphasis added)

It's just the former has to do with the structure ("form") of the argument, whereas the latter has to do with the content of the premises.

Which is why formal fallacies are also referred-to as logical fallacies and informal fallacies are not.

Yes, of course there are examples of technology that purported to do one (desirable) thing but actually did another (undesirable) thing purposely/deceptively . . . or started out innocent and turned sinister. But the percentage of those cases isn't some exremely high percentage ...

They don't have to be "extremely high" (an undefined value, btw) to hold true. They need merely exist.

Your argument would appear to be that, because "the percentage of those cases isn't ``extremely high``, then the odds of Apple's new technology being misused likewise are not "extremely high." Even were your former assertion true, that's a reverse hasty generalization fallacy.

Take an unrelated example to help you understand. We have tons of examples throughout history of people coming into large sums of money, then giving into greed or other vices and ruining their life. So do we then argue that no one ...

That's a hasty generalization (informal) fallacy. Using it to make your point is a false equivalence (logical) fallacy.

Furthermore: You're positioning your opponents' arguments as "Apple's new technology will be abused," rather than "Apple's new technology is subject to abuse," the latter of which is the true argument on the part of security and privacy groups. Not certain whether that's a "no middle ground" or "straw man" fallacy.

 

[usagora]

Sorry, but no. There are many cites available, but this may be one of the easiest to understand:

Ref: Informal fallacy
(Note: emphasis added)

Um, as your citation says, logical FORM. That's precisely what I said. Both formal and informal fallacies are logical fallacies, which is why both are discussed in logic textbooks But I'm not really sure what you hope to accomplish by continuing to argue this point. Neither type of fallacy is good.

They don't have to be "extremely high" (an undefined value, btw) to hold true. They need merely exist.

No, just the mere existence of examples is not sufficient grounds for a reasonable slippery slope argument. There has to be a definite pattern of a chain of events that almost always happens.

Your argument would appear to be that, because "the percentage of those cases isn't ``extremely high``, then the odds of Apple's new technology being misused likewise are not "extremely high." Even were your former assertion true, that's a reverse hasty generalization fallacy.

No, I'm arguing that unless you have a high percentage of cases showing the same specific chain of events (leading from something innocent to something horrible), then you have no rational grounds to assert that it's extremely likely that Apple's CSAM detection mesasures will cause a chain of events leading to totalitarian governments using it to spy on citizens and arrest them for anti-government material, etc.

That's a hasty generalization (informal) fallacy. Using it to make your point is a false equivalence (logical) fallacy.

No, it's a slippery slope fallacy (the receiving of the money leads to a series of negative results culminating in one's life being shipwrecked). Hasty generalization is a conclusion drawn on a very small, insufficient amount of evidence, which isn't the case in my example. You're proving why the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is very true.

Furthermore: You're positioning your opponents' arguments as "Apple's new technology will be abused,"

That's precisely what many have said.

rather than "Apple's new technology is subject to abuse," the latter of which is the true argument on the part of security and privacy groups. Not certain whether that's a "no middle ground" or "straw man" fallacy.

ANY technology is subject to abuse. I don't think there's a single person on this forum that would disagree with that. But what we don't do is avoid technology simply because it could be abused. Instead we put safeguards to protect against abuse.

 

[jseymour]

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on every one of each of our points. Personally, I don't care to argue them with you any longer.

 

[Mydel]

You're not understanding the process. First of all, if you're concerned about people seeing your stuff, you should never use ANY cloud service to store or backup your files. If you don't use iCloud to store your photos, then no scan takes place (because the only purpose of hte scan is to prevent CSAM from being stored/distribtued on Apple's servers). Secondly, if you DO want to use iCloud for photos, then you give your consent for the scanning process. However, Apple never sees one bit of the data from the scan process unless you have 30+ illegal images flagged. And as they stated, given the nature of the technology they're using, the chances of that happening by mistake are less than 1 in 1 trillion per year.

I understand the process. I dont find it privacy focused at all. And no. I do not use any cloud storage. That is the point. I dont want to use it and i dont want the process to be run on my device. Easy as that. .

That's not how it works. You don't get to accuse people of lying and then refuse to provide evidence to back up your accusation based on the person you're accusing not having provided evidence that they're telling the truth. That's what we call a cop-out. If you want to say you're undecided or would like to see more evidence, then fine. But if you're going to accuse someone (or some company) of dishonesty, then you better have your facts straight.

Yes. Companies are dihonest. Nearly all of them. If you deny that siple fact than there is no room for discussion

 

[usagora]

I understand the process. I dont find it privacy focused at all. And no. I do not use any cloud storage. That is the point. I dont want to use it and i dont want the process to be run on my device. Easy as that. .

As I literally explained in my post you were replying to, if you don't use iCloud for photos, then no scanning is processing on your device. So I was right about you not understanding how it works.

Yes. Companies are dihonest. Nearly all of them. If you deny that siple fact than there is no room for discussion

I fundamentally disagree that "nearly all" companies are dishonest. Obviously no company is perfect, but that doesn't mean they're all (nor nearly all) dishonest. And even if you believe that, the onus is still on you to prove it if you're going to accuse people or companies of dishonesty.

 

[jseymour]

As I literally explained in my post you were replying to, if you don't use iCloud for photos, then no scanning is processing on your device. So I was right about you not understanding how it works.

The people who object to Apple's announced solution don't want a CSAM scanner on their devices. Period. Whether it's allegedly active or not. How flippin' difficult can that possibly be to understand?

 

[usagora]

The people who object to Apple's announced solution don't want a CSAM scanner on their devices. Period. Whether it's allegedly active or not. How flippin' difficult can that possibly be to understand?

How "flippin'" difficult is it for you to understand Apple isn't going to build a separate, custom version of iOS 15 to placate the paranoid whiners? And even if they did, you'd still probably think they were trying to deceive you If you distrust them so much, then why are you using Apple products? smh...

 

[jseymour]

If you distrust them so much, then why are you using Apple products? smh...

I'm not, as much as I was prior to Aug. 6th, and I will be using increasingly less as time marches on. Because, yes: I no longer trust Apple as much as I once did.

 

[usagora]

I'm not, as much as I was prior to Aug. 6th, and I will be using increasingly less as time marches on. Because, yes: I no longer trust Apple as much as I once did.

Well good, at least you're putting actions to your words. I think you're wrong in your assessment, but at least you're being consistent.

 

[Mydel]

As I literally explained in my post you were replying to, if you don't use iCloud for photos, then no scanning is processing on your device. So I was right about you not understanding how it works.

You don't get it. The code is iOS. So who to say what. the code can execute. Remember the GPS issues in iPhone 3G? I do...

I fundamentally disagree that "nearly all" companies are dishonest. Obviously no company is perfect, but that doesn't mean they're all (nor nearly all) dishonest. And even if you believe that, the onus is still on you to prove it if you're going to accuse people or companies of dishonesty.

Well. We have different view. As the person knowing a lot of companies they are for profit. And that means to be dishonest very often of course to the certain degree.

 

[usagora]

You don't get it. The code is iOS. So who to say what. the code can execute.

When did I deny the code was in iOS? I've known that from the start. Apple has explicitly stated that no part of the scanning system is active unless you activate iCloud for photos. Are you calling them liars?

Remember the GPS issues in iPhone 3G? I do...

My iPhone history starts with the 3GS. You'll have to refresh my memory about what you're referring to here.

Well. We have different view. As the person knowing a lot of companies they are for profit. And that means to be dishonest very often of course to the certain degree.

I never denied there are dishonest companies. I'm saying that MOST aren't, at least not in some massive level.

 

[jinnyman]

I guess only way to prevent Apple from doing so is by China telling them not to. But that won't happen. Guess it's China's most favorite feature lol

 

[Tech198]

Now it’s getting serious

Yep... Where did we go wrong ?? Seriously

We have no problem Gmail scanning, but we do have problem with this .. only because Apple made a 'bungled-confused' keynote.

I guess the privacy was short lived with Apple.

 

[l0stl0rd]

Yep... Where did we go wrong ?? Seriously

We have no problem Gmail scanning, but we do have problem with this .. only because Apple made a 'bungled-confused' keynote.

I guess the privacy was short lived with Apple.

Actually I read something today and thought Apple is the leas of our problems.

Looks like the EU will turn into china.

EU interior ministers welcome mandatory chat control for all smartphones | European Pirate Party

At the meeting of EU interior ministers in Brdo, Slovenia, the government representatives today spoke out in favour of mandatory screening of our private communications. In the final declaration[1] of the two-day conference convened by the Slovenian Council Presidency, the participants welcome...

european-pirateparty.eu

 

[jseymour]

@l0stl0rd, I've sad news for you: Every government on the planet, including the U.S., is seeking to compromise encryption with back door access. If this happens, and I fear it will, eventually , we can all kiss the idea of being able to log in securely, or even run our own WiFi networks with any semblance of security, goodbye.

 

[SurferPup]

@l0stl0rd, I've sad news for you: Every government on the planet, including the U.S., is seeking to compromise encryption with back door access. If this happens, and I fear it will, eventually , we can all kiss the idea of being able to log in securely, or even run our own WiFi networks with any semblance of security, goodbye.

We have to organise somewhere that we can all meet with a solid rock over hang that satellites cannot incept our movements and conversations. I know a few locations in The Grand Canyon and outback Australia. Safer in Oz - only have the ‘Optus Aurora’ and a few US military grade satellites watching me when I’m down under. BYO alcohol ? , I do a mean BBQ with steaks ? and sausages.