EFF urges Apple to drop CSAM tool plans completely



  • Reply 41 of 47
    EFF is right. Apple should abandon this ridiculous idea all together. 
  • Reply 42 of 47
    If Apple needs a solid principle it should be: Scan user's data to improve their experience, do not scan for any other reason.
  • Reply 43 of 47
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,073member
    crowley said:
    I have heard of the EFF and know what they do.  They've done some decent and worthwhile campaigning in the past, but they're very close to being
    no-compromise privacy zealots.  And I doubt Apple are going to be much bothered to engage with people who cannot be reasoned with given the concurrent obligations Apple feels that it has.
    "no-compromise privacy zealots" is how a lot of people would describe Apple.  Remember the San Bernardino case where they refused to help decrypt the shooter's iPhone? What about when the FBI asked for a backdoor to help fight crime?  In both cases, Apple has clearly said "NO, we will not help you hack our phones because it would compromise our users' privacy."  Beginning in MacOS 10.8, Apple added privacy checks that required applications to ask permission to read your personal data.  In Mojave (10.14), they ramped it up with the requirement to ask permission to use the camera and microphone, and in Catalina (10.15) they make apps ask permission to use screen recording or scan most files on your disk.  They have made an entire series of commercials about privacy.

    The one place, sadly, where Apple has "compromised" is in their dealing with China, where they contracted iCloud to GCBD, a company that is capable of being influenced the Chinese Communist Party.  Without this arrangement, the CCP would have embargoed ALL iPhone sales inmainland China.  Period.  This set a terrible precedent, and the EFF and others continue to give them flak for it.  The CSAM image scanning would be a bridge too far, because scanning and reporting rules could be enforced by foreign governments looking to silence dissidents for sharing memes or pictures that match a "known database" of images.
    Apple didn’t simply refuse, they don’t have the ability to decrypt encrypted devices. You get that right?

    That's not right. Apple was not asked to decrypt the data on the iPhone. (Which as you correctly stated, they didn't have the ability to do so.) Apple was mandated under a court order to create special software that can be installed on the iPhone that for one, will bypass security features that wipes out the data on the iPhone after so many attempts at guessing the passcode. And then Apple was required to provide that software to the FBI. But they refused a court order to do so. One of Apple claim was that once the FBI had the special software, it could be use to unlock other iPhones, that were not part of the court order.  Thus compromising the privacy and security of other iPhone users. The case never went to trial as some other entity was able to unlock the iPhone in question. 


    >As a result, the FBI asked Apple Inc. to create a new version of the phone's iOS operating system that could be installed and run in the phone's random access memory to disable certain security features that Apple refers to as "GovtOS". Apple declined due to its policy which required it to never undermine the security features of its products. The FBI responded by successfully applying to a United States magistrate judge, Sheri Pym, to issue a court order, mandating Apple to create and provide the requested software.[21] The order was not a subpoena, but rather was issued under the All Writs Act of 1789.[22][23]<

    edited September 2021 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 44 of 47
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,073member
    Honestly the device side scanning was a privacy thing. They should just not encrypt iCloud photos and scan them for child porn of any kind like Facebook and Google already do. I’m tired of all these people acting like you deserve the right to privately rape kids. 
    This is an example of at least two logical fallacies: false premise, and straw man.  Just because the technology is used to scan for child pornography does not mean that people arguing against it are in favor of child pornography.
    Perhaps the EFF is indulging in a straw man argument as well? The user has to agree to Apple's terms of service AND personally choose to designate apps to be backed up in iCloud. As a result, the files that get scanned don't change regardless of where the scanning occurs. Where is the back door supposed to be? The same files will always be scanned.
    The "backdoor" is with iMessage. iMessage is suppose to be end to end encryption. Which means that Apple should not be able to see any of the contents of an iMessage before, during and after the iMessage is sent. But on iPhones of minors, software installed on the device can scan (if turned on) all photos sent through their iMessage, searching for sexually explicit images before encryption. The search uses recognition software and machine learning. Much like searching for images of your dog or cat in your photo library.  But that scanning software, already installed in the OS, can be tweaked to scan the photos of all iMessages sent from any iPhone, not just the ones used by minors. Just because Apple stated that it won't use the scanning software for anything else or in any other way, that doesn't mean that it can't be use for anything else or in any other way.

    Here's an easy to understand article by EFF on the matter


    This is the same Apple that did this.

    edited September 2021 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 45 of 47
    crowley said:
    Well that's a surefire way to get yourself sidelined.  If the EFF can't be reasonable and have a dialogue then they'll be treated as unreasonable and unworthy of dialogue.
    “If the EFF can’t be reasonable”

    What’s to say the EFF isn’t being reasonable here? I, and most others agree with their position I would bet. 
  • Reply 46 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    frost_0ne said:
    crowley said:
    Well that's a surefire way to get yourself sidelined.  If the EFF can't be reasonable and have a dialogue then they'll be treated as unreasonable and unworthy of dialogue.
    “If the EFF can’t be reasonable”

    What’s to say the EFF isn’t being reasonable here?
    I imagine Apple will not see them as being reasonable.

    They're demanding that Apple do more than listen, while they aren't showing much evidence of listening themselves.  And they aren't entertaining any dialogue about the problem that Apple are trying to address, they are outrightly demanding that Apple stop doing something, without even the slightest gesture towards what a more palatable solution would be.

    Apple have goals and the EFF are showing complete disregard and indifference towards them.  Therefore they are being unreasonable.
Sign In or Register to comment.