Re:Apple Regrets Confusion over 'iPhone Scanning'
by fingerlocks on Friday August 13, 2021 @10:04PM
(#28177152)
> Since the scanning doesn't happen on iCloud, this distinction is irrelevant.
It’s really not irrelevant. A third party photo library that avoids using the PhotoKit library would not be touched by the CSAM detector. There are many of these on the App Store.
One step further and store the photos encrypted, with a custom renderer that decrypts the content on the heap, and that would take some tremendous performance-hitting detection abilities it’s extremely unlikely to ever happen.
Re:Apple Regrets Confusion over 'iPhone Scanning'
by romwell on Friday August 13, 2021 @11:12PM
(#28177502)
"Look, there's a hack that allows you to avoid this at the cost of convenience that you bought the device for!"
OK.
Re:Apple Regrets Confusion over 'iPhone Scanning'
by fingerlocks on Saturday August 14, 2021 @01:39AM
(#28178330)
“Don’t support this company and it’s entire product line because this one app is scanning for kiddie porn”.
Misrepresenting each other’s arguments is not how you have a discussion.
Re:Apple Regrets Confusion over 'iPhone Scanning'
by romwell on Saturday August 14, 2021 @03:02PM
(#28183121)
"Don't support this company and it's entire product line because the software on their entire product line is going to call a SWAT team on your location if it thinks it matched something in a database of what some other guys say is kiddie porn, but nobody can see!"
I hope that's precise enough, and sure, everyone is welcome to make their own decisions regarding this.
Re:Apple Regrets Confusion over 'iPhone Scanning'
by fingerlocks on Monday August 16, 2021 @01:26AM
(#28195176)
Precisely wrong. It’s just iCloud photos.
* It was not universally understood that this would only apply to photos sent to iCloud.
Since the scanning doesn't happen on iCloud, this distinction is irrelevant.
"We are going to intrusively scan the subset of your photos that you care enough to back up to the cloud that we've been pushing to you for years" is pretty clear.
* It was not universally understood that this was only looking for previously known CSAM.
It was only looking for whatever is in an opaque database which, according to a third party we don't have any contract with, contains CSAM.
* It was not universally understood that they were using some sort of hash matching so photos you took yourself would not trigger the system.
Yeah right, I feel totally safe knowing that I won't be falsely reported to FBI by a "some sort of" hash matching.
Here's a hash function: f(x) = 0 for all x
It's "some sort of" hash, too.