alt Hacker News> It is crazy people think apple isnt on the side of privacy.
> It also ensured pressure from governments and plaintiffs, including CSAM victims, who preferred Apple’s more interventionist approaches, which Apple had voluntarily demonstrated it was willing to do.
I feel that Apple open pandora's box with the client-side scanning. It proved that it was technically feasible, and was "privacy preserving". I use scare quotes there because I don't think that political or religious dissidents would find that the same or similar technology used to discover and persecute them is "privacy preserving". And that's really the problem with Apple here. They provided a model for scanning for any kind of message or material while purportedly maintaining privacy.
Replies
> I feel that Apple open pandora's box with the client-side scanning.
That box has been open for years now.
Big brother is already watching what you do on your Android device.
> A Dad Took Photos of His Naked Toddler for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil...
The Pandora's box was already open and essentially no one noticed nor was there immense pushback that resulted in the features being removed. Photo scanning was already happening for both Android and Apple for the purpose of image search.
I thought the client side scanning was to protect children? If it suspects an image is bad, it blurs it and pops up a warning including a link to resources to go to for help.
Very different than trying to narc out users to the authorities.
Is it different than telling your therapist something in confidence and then finding police waiting for you in the lobby.
I still also totally don't get their policy.
Trying to avoid false positives by not firing until a threshold was hit (was it 20 images?) seemed insane from a PR position... rightly or wrongly, all it would take would be the wrong court case and you can see the headlines:
"Apple says users can have up to 20 CSAM images on their phone before they'll tell police"
[dead]
> It proved that it was technically feasible, and was "privacy preserving".
Didn't their paper disproved by reversing the perceptual hashes to reveal blurred version of the images being hashed, and Apple basically said "that's fair, it's not as robust as we wanted, let's visit this later"?
If not, I'll happily stand corrected, but please share sources.
Addenda:
- Apple's original paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20210807165030/https://www.apple...
- Paper breaking the hash: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06628
Edit: The second one is the wrong paper. I’ll find and link the correct one tomorrow. Keeping the link for transparency.