Expanded Protections for Children

Re:Expanded Protections for Children by drenvuk on Thursday August 05, 2021 @11:19PM (#28082955)

Thank you for the purely informational post and I'm currently reading through the second just to understand this more thoroughly but I can say already screw the proofs. Apple needs to stay off my devices with their crime scanning bs. It doesn't matter if this whole scheme ensures that Apple cryptographically keeps their hands clean. The effect is the same. They're on my device looking for things that can send me to jail.

These brilliant academics just don't care so long as they can publish an interesting paper I guess. Whatever, still reading.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expanded Protections for Children by tptacek on Friday August 06, 2021 @12:35AM (#28083355)

I don't think Bellare or Boneh are hurting for cites.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expanded Protections for Children by drenvuk on Friday August 06, 2021 @01:40AM (#28083692)

A drive for incrementing their number of citations wasn't what I was getting at.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expanded Protections for Children by tptacek on Friday August 06, 2021 @02:21AM (#28083899)

Then it's not clear to me what you're getting at.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expanded Protections for Children by drenvuk on Friday August 06, 2021 @02:57AM (#28084085)

1. Their credentials provide some legitimacy to this endeavor.

2. They get to do some interesting work.

Those are the positives for them I see.

Rather than abstaining they work on it and lend their names. I don't know whether they support what Apple is doing with the protocol or if they just like figuring out the possibilities. I don't think either is good in this case because I don't like the very first application of this PSI System. Maybe I'm being short sighted and jumping to conclusions all at once. I still don't like it.

[ Parent | on HN ]