• notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    10 months ago

    There are two types of people in support of this scanning: technologically illiterate or malicious.

    Either way, keep your invasive scanners off of my shit.

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Man, I remember the controversy when this initiative launched. Can’t please anyone, it seems.

    • skymtf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I never supported since it was on device and given this is the US hashes to spot “extremism could be added” given apple doesn’t know what the hashes are.

      • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        No you’re wrong.

        They are not cryptographic hashes. They are “perceptual” hashes or “fuzzy” hashes. They’re basically just a low resolution copy of the original image. It’s trivial for an attacker to maliciously send innocent seeming images that are a hash collision. This is, by the way, a feature not a bug. Perceptual hashes are not designed to perform a perfect match.

        There are plenty of free white-papers on how perceptual hashes work, and Facebook’s implementation is even open source.

        Apple said they tested 100 million perfectly legal images and three had collisions with a CSAM perceptual hash. When you consider how many photos Apple was proposing to scan (hundreds of trillions of photos) that means thousands of false positives would have occurred even if nobody maliciously abused the system.

        And because of all that - Apple was planning to do human reviews of every photo. They would, therefore, have seen every match (and every false positive). It couldn’t have been hidden from Apple.

      • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        What makes you day apple didn’t know what they are? Is this a thing that happened that I’m not aware of?

      • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nobody cared it was running on iCloud. People cared it was going to be running on their phones, scanning literally everything they had.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The consumer is not at fault for believing their personal data on their own hardrive, in the phone they paid for, should not be seen by anyone but themselves if they do not choose it to be.

        It’s not the consumers fault for believing this to be the case given this is how computer technology always worked.

        Their only fault is for using Apple, when Apple has gone to extreme lengths to blur the line between what is your and what is theres, and effectively makes it impossible to keep things on your phone only on your phone unless you opt out of iCloud entirely. iCloud is so integrated, it’s not clear to the user that everything on the phone is also on the cloud, and therefore not private.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    Scanning everyone’s photos is a clear invasion of user privacy.

    Not scanning everyone’s photos means people retain privacy, and bad actors may then have content that we, as a society, agree they should not have.

    These two things are at odds, so any solution is a compromise (or at least, a choice of one thing over another), and either will always be controversial. It’s not just photo scanning that falls into this, but also things like VPN usage – really, virtually anything that lets users retain privacy could also be used for nefarious purposes.

    Personally, I don’t want to live in a world where everyone’s photos are scanned, because I am vehemently opposed to that level of surveillance and believe it would lead to profit motives (e.g. better ad targeting). I do hope there is another way to curb CSAM content, but ultimately I don’t see mass surveillance as viable.

  • Zummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    This outrage is going to be had by several people who want protection of children who had monsters do a terrible thing to them and who exacerbated the situation by uploading it to the cloud, which makes sharing it easier. However, these people aren’t seeing the bigger implications of this. I don’t really think many of the people that are against CSAM scanning are against protection for children or prevention of the very thing this is designed to prevent, myself included. However, what people are against is the scanning of material on your phone (which is what Apple proposed). People don’t want pictures scanned on their phones, even if it’s only as those photos will be uploaded to the cloud. Several companies were doing the scanning after the content was placed on the cloud, which many people against the previously mentioned scanning were in favor of. Apple, who is not in favor of scanning of your cloud data, was against this, which I think is admirable.

    The fact of the matter is that scanning data for any purpose is at odds with the protection of your privacy. I, for one, am in favor of privacy protection. And although at times it may seem like people are against things like the protection for children, the fact is we’re actually in favor of protection for everyone.