• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    207
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I wonder how many complaining here actually read even this bland and uninformative article.

    At issue I believe (because it is not stated, but discussed elsewhere in better venues) is that UK wants to be able to see inside encrypted comms and files, under the guise of CSAM detection. Apple is right to oppose it.

    Arguments based on hypocrisy real or perceived in other venues (china) has nothing to do with this decision its just piss-taking. Give it a rest.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      242 years ago

      Remember how everyone kicked up a giant stink about apple adding “on device CSAM scanning when uploading photos to iCloud”?

      They did that precisely because it would allow them to search for CSAM without giving up any privacy. As I said back when all that rage was happening, if apple don’t get to implement it this way you can be damn sure that the government is going to force them to implement CSAM scanning in a much more privacy-destroying way, and well here we are.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        Anything scanning messages or media on my device is an absolute NO if I don’t control it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          You did control it though. It only scanned what you were uploading to iCloud, and only during the upload process.

          If you turned off iCloud upload it never scanned anything.

      • Hello Hotel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        CSAM, as defined by apple, SPOILER that could be anything, including, and I could rattle off names, anything that threatens the government or those who got their tendrils into it, if we, For example have authoritarians change us to be facist, or re-introduce slavery or segrogation. A mere picture of your bedroom or face could have a somthing in it that allows you to be put into a cohort for later use (legal or not)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          No, that’s not at all what it was defined as or what it could be. CSAM is Child Sex Abuse Material. It wasn’t going to be memes of winny the pooh like people argued.

          That’s also not how CSAM matching works. It simply compares hashes of images. If you take a photo of you in your bedroom with a sign saying “fuck the government” it will not match any CSAM database hashes no matter how authoritarian or fascist the government is, because they don’t have that same photo in their CSAM databases.

          You’re doing what the outraged did back then and thinking CSAM scanning is some sort of AI powered image recognition that scans images for specific things. It’s not that at all. It is a database of known CSAM images that have been hashed and that have been confirmed by multiple different governments (multiple different ones so one government can’t just put an image of their president that they don’t like in theirs and then find out who has uploaded that photo. If it only appears in one government CSAM database it will not be checked). It takes your photo, hashes it, and then checks to see if that hash is in the CSAM database. It won’t be, ever.

          You know what will be in there and matched? If you download child porn that is already out there on the web.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            62 years ago

            You’re naive if you think that is all it will ever be, and that there will never be scope creep, especially malicious scope creep that turns into overreach

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        212 years ago

        CSAM without giving up any privacy.

        Hmmmm funny because security researchers said the opposite, I kinda believe them more?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Who said it was givening up privacy. The worst I heard is slippery slope of they donthis they might ad more to it later. And how was it privacy compromising?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            And how was it privacy compromising?

            1. Anything could be added to the hashes with the user having no way to know what’s being searched for beyond “trust us”. This could be partially alleviated if, for example, the hash had to be signed by organizations in a combination of states that’d make it difficult to push through hashes for anything other actual CSAM (so not just Five Eyes)

            2. Adversarial examples to intentionally set off the filter were demonstrated to be possible. Apple made it clear that there are types of content they’d be legally obligated to report once they became aware of, and it’d be well within a government agency’s capabilities to honeypot, say initially, terrorist recruitment material

            3. Coincidental false positives are also entirely possible (ImageNet had some naturally occuring clashes) and can result in their employees seeing your sensitive photographs

            4. The user’s device acting against the user cements other user-hostile and privacy-hostile behavior. “People could circumvent the CSAM scan” would be given as another reason against right to repair and ability to see/modify the software your own device is running

            5. Tech companies erode privacy by flip-flopping between “sure we’re giving ourselves abusable power, but we’ll stand up to governments pressuring us to expand this” and then “well what were we supposed to do, leave the market?” when they inevitably concede

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              What’s anything? They are not looking for any CSAM pictures they are looking for specific ones that are in a database. Its not like they can create a hash for a guy letting his dog on a horse and find all those pictures.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                they are looking for specific ones that are in a database

                They could be looking for any images without your knowing - there’s no guarantee that those images came from a CSAM database.

                Its not like they can create a hash for a guy letting his dog on a horse

                They could trivially create a hash for a picture of a guy letting his dog on a horse (which would also include other very similar images).

                I didn’t necessarily mean to claim that they can scan for a concept lacking a fixed image, if that’s what you’re saying. That would theoretically be possible with enough hashes, but impractical.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        152 years ago

        Like the politicians would have cared. This is just a convenient excuse. Either they would have found another one or they would have said “we can’t trust Apple to scan for this material. The police has to do these scans!”

        We were right to oppose it then and we are right to oppose it now.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -92 years ago

          We were right to oppose it then and we are right to oppose it now.

          You were right to oppose doing it in the most privacy conscious way? Or were you against CSAM scanning at all?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            It was a government provided list of hashes check against. For me, I don’t like it because I don’t trust 3 letter agencies to not abuse the ability to search every iDevice in the world for arbitrary file hashes.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              It was a database of hashes that were taken from the intersection of multiple country CSAM databases.

              Germany couldn’t just put a picture of a nazi in there and have every iPhone flag everyone that has a picture of a nazi on it unless multiple other countries also had that same picture in their CSAM db.

              It also only happened when you uploaded the photo to iCloud. Know what they do now instead? Just scan for CSAM on iCloud like google, Microsoft, imgur, Reddit, etc all do.

              The end result is the same in detecting CSAM, but the way apple proposed was more secure and valued your privacy more.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      422 years ago

      Other than their asinine charging cable/accessory situations I consistently find myself agreeing with Apple pretty much any time any government body or group is mad they won’t do something.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        182 years ago

        how do you reckon?

        only time they have been on the consumer’s side was with regards to privacy, refusing to comply with the FBI and now this.

        everything else they are pretty anti-consumer, off the top of my head

        • first to remove jack 3.5 (even though I don’t really care about this, others do.)
        • sticking to shitty lightning cable so they can sell overpriced cables
        • the charger thing with the EU
        • worst of all entirely against right to repair
        • Perhyte
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          To be fair, those first three points fall squarely under that “charging cable/accessory situations” exception. With Apple, it turns out that’s a pretty broad exception.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Bluetooth provides another vector of attack for the convenience. There is already quite a list of known vulnerabilities. Yes, many of these get patched but as the open standard evolves, so do the hackers. You could turn it off entirely, plug in a cable & forget all that if all you wanted to do was use audio/video.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            like I said, I personally don’t care, but it’s a nice port, pretty ubiquitous and it’s nice to have choice for customers.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        442 years ago

        They’re generally on the wrong side of the battle for right to repair and removable batteries too.

        But yeah, privacy they almost always have the right of it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        212 years ago

        Requiring usb c was something I agreed with. But indeed many times apple has rightly fought for their userbase.

  • Adam
    link
    fedilink
    English
    672 years ago

    Don’t you know anything, Brits? Apple only strips security features for the Chinese government, you fools!

      • Adam
        link
        fedilink
        English
        152 years ago

        I mean, they didn’t cave to Russia either. Apple just has principles until there’s enough cash on the table. Then they claim to “always abide by local laws” wherever they operate.

          • Adam
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Nah you were appropriately smart mouthed. The problem was my clumsy post intro.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 years ago

        Oh, they are authoritarian enough. They just aren’t powerful enough.

        Want to know what it looks like to go power crazy with no power, then go look at the Tories.

      • DreamButt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        it has more to do with where their factories are located. Hard to negotiate with the people who control the very land and people you utilize to build your hardware

        Not saying that justifies it, just think we should be accurate with our outrage

        • Adam
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years ago

          They could have factories in China and not sell phones there. There are also other places to build factories. They just might have to trim back their 42% profit margin. It’s still a willingness to abandon principles for a price, isn’t it?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          I think it’s more that they know they don’t have any negotiating power in China. China doesn’t care if they have iMessage, but the UK and the british people do.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Yeah I agree that the CCP have more leverage due to the factories, aa well as the larger user base.

          Just like to point out apple aren’t some altruistic organisation, they are a corporation out to make money, and that the CCP suck.

          Also, I profoundly disagree with the legislation this thread was originally about.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      It’s this publicly known, or just assumed because China blocks everything they can’t read?

      I assume that Apple gives the Chinese government access somehow, but I’ve never read details.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, that NYT article does not make a single mention of iMessage or end-to-end encryption.

          Last I checked, iMessage still works in China. I find it implausible that China would allow this without access. If there’s a mechanism for that, I’d like to know what it is and how far it extends. The fact that Apple doesn’t admit that there’s a difference in iMessage’s security in China makes me wonder whether it is compromised globally.

          • Adam
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            I don’t think there’s any evidence of a global compromise but I think you’re right that China wouldn’t allow access if it didn’t ultimately control it.

            I couldn’t find anything specific about iMessage but the keys are backed up to iCloud – and we know that’s compromised. I can’t imagine them leaving users the option to just not back up to iCloud to avoid surveillance, but I haven’t seen any specifics. Best to assume that under no circumstances do you ever have privacy from the gov’t in China or even when messaging someone in China.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    702 years ago

    Signal and WhatsApp have also said they’d likely leave the UK market if this bill is passed as it currently is.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1612 years ago

    There’s legitimate criticism to be made for Apple, but this is something I really appreciate about them.

      • GunnarRunnar
        link
        fedilink
        68
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        It’s their brand. And I’m glad it is. It’s something Samsung can’t copy (I presume because of the Google backbone) or attack.

        (Written on a Samsung phone btw.)

        Edit. I should probably add why it’s good even when I’m not in their ecosystem. It raises the bar for competition and shows that privacy adds value.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        282 years ago

        I don’t know if they actually care, but I think they figured privacy was a great niche to jump in when they started losing more and more market share to android

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          62 years ago

          It’s a brilliant move for Apple because Google can’t play that game.

          Google is fundamentally an advertising company. They materially benefit from user data in providing a more valuable service to advertisers. If Google takes a strong stance on privacy, it could disadvantage the primary business.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        Yup. They have had issues (think CSAM scandal), but they’re slowly earning back my trust. I’m still a bit wary, but for big tech they have a pretty good track record.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          142 years ago

          They have had issues (think CSAM scandal)

          People like you that think that was a “scandal” are half the problem though.

          What they were doing with the on-device CSAM scanning as part of the upload to iCloud only was actually good for your privacy. It enabled them to comply with any current and future CSAM laws while protecting your privacy by doing the scanning on your device. It meant that they could then add E2E encryption to iCloud (and then iMessage as well) while still complying with CSAM laws. The alternative - and what everyone else does including google, microsoft, imgur, dropbox, etc - is doing the CSAM scanning in the cloud after you’ve uploaded it completely insecurely, requiring the data to be stored unencrypted and visible to those companies (and the government).

          Doing it on device should have been applauded, but it was attacked by people that didn’t understand how it’s actually better for them. There was so much misinformation thrown around - that it would scan all of your photos and files as soon as they were created and then instantly report to the police if you took a photo of your infant in the bath, for example, or that it would be used by governments to identify people who have memes saved that they don’t like, which is absurd because that’s not how the CSAM databases work.

          Apples proposed CSAM scanning was literally the best for privacy in the entire industry, and people created such an outrage over it that they basically went “oh well, we’ll just do what everyone else is doing which is far more insecure and worse for privacy” and everyone congratulated themselves lol

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            You make a good point. I guess the outrage was more about scanning at all, though I suppose that’s not on Apple.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Apple would have to refactor their tools and potentially introduce security issues for everyone by doing this. If the UK government wants to be fucking dumb, it shouldn’t be something everyone has to pay the price for.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      This isn’t about the EU. The UK isn’t in the EU. And I’m not sure why you would trust the government that wants to be able to hack everyone’s phones.

  • Wothe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 years ago

    And they will come up with other ways to steal user’s data, so they could sell it or distinguish user behavior to develop new product.

  • Marxism-Fennekinism
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Yeah yeah. We all know you’re too greedy for that Apple. Cut the talk and actually do it if you give a shit about encryption.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -22 years ago

        If you’re talking about FaceTime and iMessage… They might technically not cost any money, but if I wanted to use them I’d first have to pay for an overpriced badly designed phone, which means they’re debatably free. They’re used to enrich the iPhone- just look at the whole blue/green text bubble thing. ‘If you don’t also have an iPhone you get treated differently’ hardly sounds like something a totally ‘free’ software would include. It just feeds into their ‘exclusivity’ bubble.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 years ago

      Why would they pull out of the UK if the laws are only proposals at this point? That’s silly

  • PCH
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 years ago

    Good for Apple to take a stand.