Not the OP, but by good old fashioned police work, I assume non-dragnet methods, where everybody's device isn't scanned in an automated way. So instead of sifting through a massive collection of automatically collected data, taken from a vast majority of innocent people, you'd deal with explicit reports of CSAE. You'd then be able to get a warrant to obtain ISP (and other) records, cross-reference and proceed from there. If there's reasonable suspicion, you'd get the suspect's address and go talk to them in person.
Before we started trying to push government-sanctioned and unwanted spyware engines on private devices, I imagine the process looked something like that. Is this incorrect?
But we've already established there is no public oversight over the contents of the NCMEC database and that there cannot ever be, by design. Furthermore, it's known to contain hashes of non-CSAE images simply because they were found in a CSAE-related context.
So how can this system guarantee civil freedom? How can it be guaranteed that it won't be exploited by the small number of people in power to actually inspect it and manipulate it?
Have we established that? Certainly not a reality I recognize. The processes involved in CSAM databases like NCMEC/ICSE are many years old. If it leads to widespread civil rights abuses, where are they?
Google Drive has 1bn users. Google scans content for CSAM already. Shouldn't we be seeing these negative side effects already?
Proponents of these systems can point to thousands upon thousands of actual "wins" (such as identifying teachers, police officers, sports coaches, judges, child minders etc who are pedophiles) and detractors cannot provide actual evidence of their theoretical disadvantages.
No system is perfect, no system "guarantees civil freedom", this is not a fair test. The actual evidence suggests automated scanning for CSAM is a net win for society.
That’s the major concern I have: take as a given that NCMEC is on the side of the angels here, what happens when some government demands that Apple help identify anyone who has an image shared from a protest, leak, an underground political movement, etc.? The database is private by necessity, so there’s no way to audit for updates.
Now, currently this is only applied to iCloud photos which can already be scanned server side, making this seem like a likely step towards end to end encryption of iCloud photos but not a major change from a privacy perspective. What seems like more of a change would be if it extended to non-cloud photos or the iMessage nude detection scanner since those aren’t currently monitored, and in the latter case false positives become a major consideration if it tries to handle new content of this class as well.
> If it leads to widespread civil rights abuses, where are they?
This is disingenuous, since up to this point these databases weren't used in systems residing on end user devices, scanning their local files.
The disadvantages aren't merely "theoretical"; they just haven't materialized yet since the future does not yet exist. To ignore these obvious faults by hand-waving them as theoretical is to blatantly ignore valid concerns raised by thousands of informed citizens.
No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean there aren't some systems that simply go too far.
The distinction between scanning locally before upload, and on server after upload, is an implementation detail. The only reason Apple have done this is to allow them to implement E2EE for iCloud without hosting CSAM.
All arguments relating to anything other than this are arguing against something that doesn't exist.
I don't dispute that fictional proposals in the imaginations of HNers might pose a grave (fictional) threat to civil freedoms.
I don't really understand what you mean when you say it is an "implementation detail". It is definitely a detail of the implementation, but it is an extremely important detail that makes all of the difference.
Given that it is just an implementation detail, I guess they can simply change it and then the rest of us will be at peace?
I think it would do you well to see this quote:
> ”Any proposal must be viewed as follows. Do not pay overly much attention to the benefits that might be delivered were the law in question to be properly enforced, rather one needs to consider the harm done by the improper enforcement of this particular piece of legislation, whatever it might be.”
Where would these reports come from though? Without these dragnet methods, it would seem like a very simple matter to get away with owning this kind of material.
This is a reality you have to accept. It is a simple matter to get away with owning this kind of material, dragnet method or not.
There is no point in trying to eradicate all such material and bring the number to absolute zero. It's impossible. The only way to semi-ensure this would be absolute slavery of the citizenry, which I hope is a non-goal.
It's a fact that NCMEC referrals have identified teachers who were secretly pedophiles, who were subsequently banned from teaching. Most people see this as a good thing. If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument.
I support everybody's right to argue for the type of society they want to see, but there's an arrogance/conspiratorial flavor to a lot of the comments here that suggest they don't really understand what they are up against. There are actual benefits.
> If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument.
I'm a law-and-order guy myself, have applied for (technical) position in police and would even accept a paycut for it.
But it is with this like with other security related things, many people only considers two of the three cornerstones:
- confidentiality
- integrity
- availability
Same here:
Justice is not only about punishing every very bad guy.
It is also very much about not dragging innocent people through the worst accusations an innocent person can be dragged through.
Keeping people safe is not only about rescuing people from hostage situations - it is also about not ramming in the door at someone relaxing on their couch because some random guy or gal called over ip phone.
Too many people already go through huge problems because of false accusations. You say you work in the field so I guess you must have heard about cases were perfectly innocent people commit suicide because their lives got ruined because of what later turned out to be baseless accusations.
Justice is also about not creating a system that creates even more of this suffering, right?
(BTW: I really enjoyed the an0m trick and a few others. I root for you guys, but lets keep it real and not set up the worst footgun for the future since the well meant Jew lists in Europe early last century.)
I don't deny the system has some benefits, they just aren't benefits I will gladly give up my own freedom for nor the freedom of my fellow citizens.
I don't want to do away with anything; I just want "you" out of my devices, where "you" don't belong anyway and where you haven't been up to this point. (Well, you still aren't there because I don't use an iPhone, but hopefully the point is clear.)
Also note that I'm not against the use of such technology in certain situations, such as in unencrypted cloud storage. Though concerns with lack of oversight exist there as well! But installing this on end user devices goes a (huge) step too far.
Sorry, to clarify, you do in fact support Apple running the exact same scans on their server side CPUs? A situation that has the exact same effects on society...?
Your only concern then, is with a future authoritarian policy of your own imagination?
Commenters here are making claims about false positives, arrests of innocents, lived ruined etc. These effects are identical whether uploads are scanned before or after transmission.
What are the different effects of society from scanning the upload before transmission?
> A situation that has the exact same effects on society...?
This is patently false.
You do come off as arguing in bad faith, resorting to debasing any concerns of policy misuse as simply a product of the imagination of the person raising the concern. As if authoritarian policies and erosion of freedom/privacy are something completely baseless, impossible and unheard of, instead of happening all the time.
It's still not clear to me whether you are raising an issue with scanning client side, or your concern is actually with some other policy you expect to be implemented in future.
What is the most obviously different effect on society? I don't know how anyone would even know what CPU calculated their file hash.
Before we started trying to push government-sanctioned and unwanted spyware engines on private devices, I imagine the process looked something like that. Is this incorrect?