• Lutra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I just read up, and I didn’t know this is not so much about stopping new images, but restitution for continued damages.

    The plaintiffs are “victims of the Misty Series and Jessica of the Jessica Series” ( be careful with your googling) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e81dadd7b0493491c7d7

    Correct me please, The plaintiffs logic is : “The existence of these files is damaging to us. Anyone found ever in possession of one of these files is required by law to pay damages. Any company who stores files for others, must search every file for one these 100 files, and report that files owner to the court”

    I thought it was more about protecting the innocent, and future innocent, and it seems more about compensating the hurt.

    Am I missing something?

  • john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Is this a free system, by the way?

    Is Apple essentially getting sued for not giving another company money?

  • lurklurk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 days ago

    Is iCloud a file sharing service or social network in some way? If it isn’t, comparing them with such services makes no sense

  • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The irony is that the Apple CSAM detection system was as good as we could make it at the time, with multiple steps to protect people from accidental positives.

    But, as usual, I think I was the only one who actually read the paper and didn’t go “REEEE muh privacy!!!” after seeing the headline.

    • lurklurk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 days ago

      You should have though. This type of scanning is the thin end of the wedge to complete surveillance. If it’s added, next year it’s extended to cover terrorism. Then to look for missing people. Then “illegal content” in general.

      The reason most people seem to disagree with you in this case is that you’re wrong

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        We could’ve burned that bridge when we got to it. If Apple would’ve been allowed to implement on-device scanning, they could’ve done proper E2E “we don’t have the keys officer, we can’t unlock it” encryption for iCloud.

        Instead what we have now is what EVERY SINGLE other cloud provider is: they scan your shit in the cloud all the time unless you specifically only upload locally-encrypted content, which 99.9999% of people will never be bothered to do.

    • Xatolos@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think I was the only one who actually read the paper and didn’t go “REEEE muh privacy!!!” after seeing the headline.

      Did you also read the difference in how Apple was trying to go about it and how literally everyone else was going about it?

      Apple wanted to scan your files on your device, which is a huge privacy issue and a huge slippery slope (and a backdoor built in).

      The entire industry scans files when they are off your private device and on their own personal computers. So your privacy is protected here, and no backdoor built in.

      Apple just had a fit and declared that if they can’t backdoor and scan your files on your own device then they just won’t try anything, even the most basics. They could just follow the lead of anyone else and scan iCloud files, but they refuse to do that. That was the difference.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        There was no “huge privacy issue”.

        First of all: You could turn off the local scanning by turning off iCloud sync - which would’ve sent the images to the cloud for scanning anyway. That’s it, nothing else, nobody at Apple would’ve touched a single super-private file on your device.

        The local scanning required MULTIPLE (where n>3, they didn’t say the exact number for obvious reasons) matches to known and human-verified CSAM. This database is the one that would’ve been loaded from iCloud if you had it turned on. This is the exact same database all cloud providers are using for legal reasons. Some have other algos on top - at least Microsoft had an is_penis algorithm that shut down a German dude’s whole Live account for his kid’s pics being on OneDrive.

        After the MULTIPLE matches (you can’t get flagged by “accidentally” having one on your phone, nor would pics of your kids in the pool trigger anything) a human checker would have had enough data to decrypt just those images and see a “reduced resolution facsimile” (Can’t remember the exact term) of the offending photos. This is where all of the brainpower used to create false matches would’ve ended up in. You would’ve had to create multiple matches of known CP images that looks enough like actual CP for the human to make an erroneous call multiple times to trigger anything.

        If after that the human decided that yep, that’s some fucked up shit, the authorities would’ve been contacted.

        Yes, a Bad Government could’ve forced Apple to add other stuff in the database. (They can do it right now for ALL major cloud storage providers BTW) But do you really think people wouldn’t have been watching for changes in the cloud-downloaded database and noticed any suspicious stuff immediately?

        Also according to the paper the probability of a false match was 1 in 1 trillion accounts - and this was not disputed even by the most hardcore activists btw.

        tl;dr If you already upload your stuff to the cloud (like iOS does automatically) the only thing that would’ve changed is that nobody would’ve had a legit reason to peep at your photos in the cloud “for the children”. But if you’ve got cloud upload off anyway, nothing would’ve changed. So I still don’t understand the fervour people had over this - the only reason I can think of is not understanding how it worked.

        • Xatolos@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          So I still don’t understand the fervour people had over this - the only reason I can think of is not understanding how it worked.

          Or that it was a built in backdoor running in your device.

          The difference is what happens on your own device should be in your control. Once it leaves your device then it’s not in your control. Which is where the entire issue was. It doesn’t matter if I toggle a switch on whether to allow upload or not, the fact it was happening on my device was the issue.

          • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 days ago

            It’s not a very good back door if you have an explicit easy to use switch to turn it off.

            And even without this feature on your device, they don’t need to use a “back door”. They’ll just go through your front door that’s wide open and can’t be closed because of “the children”

            If you want to “own” your phone, there are other manufacturers than Apple that allow you to lock it down like Fort Knox (or whatever you deem secure)

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          You don’t understand or you refuse to acknowledge this is a back door into your device an Apple is actively scanning your files meaning your device is now compromised.

          Or are you shilling for anti-privacy?

          My device, my files. I don’t want your scanning.

          What’s so hard to grok about that unless you are anti-privacy?

          • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            The files WILL be scanned the second they leave your device to any major cloud.

            If they don’t leave your device, then turning off iCloud (and thus the “back door”) wouldn’t have had any impact on you.

            • Lutra@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Just clearing up the argument.

              1. The files will be scanned
              2. They’ve been doing for decades

              There’s a difference here in principle. Exemplified by the answer to this question: “Do you expect that things you store somewhere are kept private?” Where, Private means: “No one looks at your things.” Where, No One means: not a single person or machine.

              This is the core argument. In the world, things stored somewhere are often still considered private. (Safe Deposit box). People take this expectation into the cloud. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Box, Dropbox etc - only made their scanning known publicly _after they were called out. They allowed their customers to _assume their files were private.

              Second issue: Does just a simple machine looking at your files count as unprivate? And what if we Pinky Promise to make the machine not really really look at your files, and only like squinty eyed. For many, yes this also counts as unprivate. Its the process that is problematic. There is a difference between living in a free society, and one in which citizens have to produce papers when asked. A substantial difference. Having files unexamined and having them examined by an ‘innocuous’ machine, are substantial differences. The difference _is privacy. On one, you have a right to privacy. In the other you don’t.


              an aside…

              In our small village, a team sweeps every house during the day while people are out at work. In the afternoon you are informed that team found illegal paraphernalia in your house. You know you had none. What defense do you have?

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              The files WILL be scanned the second they leave your device to any major cloud.

              There are services with e2e and you can encrypt before uploading to those who can’t.

              Realistically speaking, if this was implement anybody with CSAM would just not use iPhones, and all scanning would be done on everyone else.

              Then, once implemented and with less fanfare some authoritarian regimes (won’t say any to not upset the tankies) can ask apple to scan for other material too… And as it’s closed source we wouldn’t even know that the models are different by country.

      • meejle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m amazed it’s taken so long… I think I’m on my third Android phone since they first announced it and I said “fuck no”.

    • Petter1@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      😆 yea especially after I learned that most cloud services (amazon, google, dropbox) were already doing csam scans on their servers 🤭

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yep, it’s a legal “think of the children” requirement. They’ve been doing CSAM scanning for decades already and nobody cared.

        When Apple did a system that required MULTIPLE HUMAN-VERIFIED matches of actual CP before even a hint would be sent to the authorities, it was somehow the slippery slope to a surveillance state.

        The stupidest ones were the ones who went “a-ha! I can create a false match with this utter gibberish image!”. Yes, you can do that. Now you’ve inconvenienced a human checker for 3 seconds, after the threshold of local matching images has been reached. Nobody would’ve EVER get swatted by your false matches.

        Can people say the same for Google stuff? People get accounts taken down by “AI” or “Machine learning” crap with zero recourse, and that’s not a surveillance state?

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          😅why do we get downvoted?

          I guess somebody doesn’t like reality 💁🏻

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    3 days ago

    I thought the way they intended to handle it was pretty reasonable, but the idea that there is an actual obligation to scan content is disgusting.

  • paraphrand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    “People like to joke about how we don’t listen to users/feedback. About how we just assert our vision and do things how we wish. Like our mouse. It drives people absolutely bonkers! But this time we listened to the pushback. And now they sue us?”

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’d posit that the people who don’t want their files scanned, and the people suing Apple are not the same people.

      • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        If I’ve learned on thing from my time on earth, it’s that all humans are the same, and all of the opinions of one are shared by the majority.