> Are you objecting to the general concept of CSAM scanning, something every online storage provider does?
Not really. I'm just saying it's laughable to think that CSAM scanning in its current form is critically important. Maybe it's critically important for feelgood and PR but not for actually preventing child abuse. It's almost like saying scanning for catalogued images of violence stops violence. If it only were that easy, damn, the world would be a good place.
Now as to what online providers should or shouldn't do, I can't say. But a part of me hopes that they continue the march towards egregious censorship and privacy violations so that people would eventually 𝐖𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐔𝐂𝐊 𝐔𝐏 and realize that there's no way to have freedom and privacy when you're handing your life to corporations and proprietary software. I really do wish for a world that is de-facto free software and fully controlled by the user.
As for iCould, I have no skin in the game. I've never used an Apple product.
Unfortunately this clearly won't happen because of the staggering amount of people even on HN who see nothing wrong with having on-device scanners reporting back to HQ. I'm seriously baffled by the number of apologists and people who see nothing wrong with this or who flat out refuse to admit that this can lead to abuse.
Once the on-device scanning Pandora's box is open, it's trivial for governments to request more stuff to be added to the databases and Apple can't claim the defense of "we have no such ability currently" anymore.
If I was paranoid I'd wonder how much astroturfing is going on here.
> If I was paranoid I'd wonder how much astroturfing is going on here.
Ah, good old apophasis:
> a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis
> Unfortunately this clearly won't happen because of the staggering amount of people even on HN who see nothing wrong with having on-device scanners reporting back to HQ.
This is a mischaracterization of many of the arguments.
short_sells: My goal here is meta-goal: I am not trying to change your mind on this issue; rather I want you to acknowledge the strongest rational forms of disagreement.
This is a complex issue. It is non obvious how to trade off goals of protecting kids, protecting privacy, minimizing surveillance, catching predators, and dealing with the effects of false positives.
It is too simplistic (and self defeating) to think that just because people disagree with a particular conclusion that they are not allies with many of your goals.
Yes, but we have seen in the past that privacy once lost is nigh impossible to regain, and it is also obvious that the scanning Apple is proposing is trivial to bypass.
So what is it actually trying to accomplish?
I really struggle to believe that they are trying to protect kids (out of the goodness of their hearts).
The only explanation I can think of is that this is some attempt at appeasing government agencies.
Below, I'm going to push back on what I see as overconfident and overgeneralized claims. Both of these can inhibit understanding and listening.
> but we have seen in the past that privacy once lost is nigh impossible to regain
Yes, this is a key argument in the mix.
Some follow up questions:
1. As I understand it, here on HN, we are an international audience of various ages. With that in mind, I don't know your contextual experience. Are you scoping this (a) to the internet era (roughly 2000 to present)? / (b) to particular countries?
2. The statement quoted above is stated as if it is a fact, but I hope you realize it is actually a prediction. What is the historical context for this prediction? How far out into the future are you predicting?
3. Can you pin down your prediction more precisely? What does "nigh" mean? (There is a lot of variation in what "approximately" means to different people. Often the 'exceptions' are quite informative.)
4. The argument, as written, is quite general, which makes it hard to discuss. Whose privacy and in what context? Chinese citizens searching the internet? Journalists doing investigative reporting? Americans shopping in surveilled supermarkets? (Think of this as an opportunity to explain)
5. Do you mean all of the above? If you do, yes, people say that online privacy has eroded in many senses. At the same time, the tools for encryption have become more powerful, understood, and used. My point: if you make a very general statement, it is only fair if you cover the full range here.
In summary, with the above questions, I want to both better understand you -and- push back too. Unfortunately, I don't find the discussion chain above (the ~3 ancestors) particularly persuasive. I say this even though I agree with some aspects of it.
So you know where I'm coming from: in almost all situations, I've found it is more effective to understand, discuss, explain, persuade rather than 'writing off' a group of people because you don't really understand them.
P.S. I've addressed your other points in a sibling comment.
This form of question, as written is unnecessarily limiting ...
(a) there doesn't have to be one thing that Apple was trying to accomplish
(b) there doesn't have to be one motivation
... so I'm going to respond to the spirit of the question with a set of explanations, all of which may be true (to some degree) at the same time.
- parents are fearful of their kid's online activities;
- parents are open to trying new ways to give their kids freedom with some guardrails;
- yes, many people at Apple do want to protect kids out of the goodness of their hearts. This fundamental instinct is widely shared, particularly among parents.
- putting the 'why' aside, many customers perceive value and will pay for it;
- Apple executives are mostly profit-seeking (with certain constraints such as: mental models, brand constraints, regulations);
- shareholders seek profits and generally have less loyalty to any particular company's 'values' -- meaning they will 'shop around' for the best performing companies;
- as a group, shareholders see mostly upside and little downside -- don't perceive significant direct harm from these changes (at least, not until this became a public relations issue);
- generally, corporations benefit from playing nice with the U.S. government;
- Apple, in particular, has quite publicly pushed back on law enforcement's calls for decryption;
- in particular, with heightened scrutiny of the large tech companies, olive branches are particularly useful;
- some at Apple may prefer to lead with a proactive solution rather than wait for imposed regulations;
- some at Apple see this as a proactive branding opportunity;
- some Apple engineers are at the top of their field regarding encryption, security, etc and may have deemed their offering the best practical option available;
- some at Apple certainly understand the risks but assess the balance of false positives and false negatives differently than you do;
My hope is to make it a bit easier to recognize the complexity here. Though it may be true that organizations act as one entity, it is not true that they have singular intent. Attempts to claim a singular intent or goal are subjective interpretations.
Note: the list above is presented sequentially, but I am not claiming any causal ordering. They would be better presented as a network/graph connected by topics and relationships.
Not really. I'm just saying it's laughable to think that CSAM scanning in its current form is critically important. Maybe it's critically important for feelgood and PR but not for actually preventing child abuse. It's almost like saying scanning for catalogued images of violence stops violence. If it only were that easy, damn, the world would be a good place.
Now as to what online providers should or shouldn't do, I can't say. But a part of me hopes that they continue the march towards egregious censorship and privacy violations so that people would eventually 𝐖𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐔𝐂𝐊 𝐔𝐏 and realize that there's no way to have freedom and privacy when you're handing your life to corporations and proprietary software. I really do wish for a world that is de-facto free software and fully controlled by the user.
As for iCould, I have no skin in the game. I've never used an Apple product.