Apple's Federighi says child protection message was 'jumbled,' 'misunderstood'

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 90
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,496moderator
    Rayz2016 said:
    But things must be getting a bit sticky if they're rolling out Hair Force One.

    It's odd, because with this much of a backlash, Google and Microsoft would've thrown in the towel and sat round the campfire for a rethink,

    Apple keeps on insisting that the problem is the dissenters: we just don't understand. We understand just fine, Craig; we just disagree with you.

    Apple is determined to drive this through, no matter what; and you have to wonder why. I mean they already scan images on their servers, so why are they so determined to get spyware running on your phone?

    I think the reason is that, after a couple of false starts, Cupertino is ready to go all in on its next big product: advertising. But how do you do this while keeping up the 'privacy' mantra? How do you get into user tracking when you've spent the past three or four years crucifying all the other companies who make money doing it?

    Well, to start with, you release a client-side tracker, give it a noble purpose, and then try to convince people that their privacy is protected because it is not moving around a real image; just a hashed representation of the image.

    If you can get people to accept that, then it's a lot easier to get them to accept step 2; a client-side tracker that logs what you're doing on the phone, which developers and marketers can hook into and extract information. But here's the clever part: the info they extract is a machine-learned representation of you that gets a unique number so it can be tracked across applications. But it doesn't contain any real details; not your name, address, health records, nothing; because as long as they know that 884398443894398 exercises three times a week, goes to a lot of cookery classes and has a subscription to PornHub, that's all they really care about. Why do they need to know your real name? They can serve relevant ads to that person without knowing who they are. Only Apple knows that, and they will not allow that information out.  The APIs to access this pseudo-you might even incur a subscription charge.

    But to make this work, they would need the user base to be accept loggers running on their phones. And that's where we are now: Step 1. That's why the client-side tool cannot be dropped. Without it, the whole plan is screwed.

    Of course, this would work for apps, but once you get out onto the web then there's no API, so for that to work, Apple would need some kind of private relay that could substitute your details with your avatar when you make web requests.


    The message Apple is trying to get across is that your privacy is not compromised, because we're just dealing with a representation of your data, not the data itself. 


    Another Minority Report fan, I see.  


    Apple keeps on insisting that the problem is the dissenters: we just don't understand. We understand just fine, Craig; we just disagree with you.”

    Nope.  You don’t understand, and your accusations of future crimes you believe Apple is planning shows this clearly. 
    argonautfastasleep
  • Reply 62 of 90
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 142member
    Peza said:
    mfryd said:
    NYC362 said:
     ...
    ...
    Your entire comment has also dismissed the fact that Apples servers are only going to scan photos of 13 year olds and younger and only if you turn the feature on.
    ...
    What use is this feature if those who abuse children have to opt-in to have their images scanned?

    The feature can only help if people cannot opt out.

  • Reply 63 of 90
    If this was such a great idea, why are thousands of Apple employees singing an open letter against it? 
    Lol…. 
    Kinda funny that you’re trying to accuse Craig of spreading misinformation LITERALLY as you are spreading misinformation! 
    A one second duck duck go search revealed that an open letter (many of which for something as innocuous as bringing back a cancelled tv show often receive tens of thousands of signatures) received about 5,000 signatures in total, including individuals and organizations… there was ZERO mention of whether or not even a single one of those were Apple employees.
    Having signed open letters before- I don’t remember any of them asking me to identify myself by naming my employer.

    Nice try.
    edited August 2021 radarthekatargonaut
  • Reply 64 of 90
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 142member
    mfryd said:
    NYC362 said:
    ...
    ...
    I fail to see how a foreign government has had to wait for this hash comparison technique to be implemented by Apple before they could demand that Apple start scanning for pictures of their leader or any other subject.  The very nature of a dictator or totalitarian implies they could demand any kind of functionality they wish in return for access to their markets.  They didn’t need to wait for Apple to create a tool that could be applied to their dastardly schemes; they could simply demand that Apple do what they want done regarding spying on their citizenry and hold access to their market hostage until they get it.  So your argument holds exactly zero water.  
    Governments can demand all they want.  If Apple does not have the capability to comply, then they cannot comply.  If they have the ability than they do.

    This is why Apple has refused to implement a backdoor in iPhone encryption.  As long as they are unable to comply with an order to unlock an iPhone, then they can't comply.   Apple has made it very clear that they understand that once a capability exists, that governments will force them to use it for governmental purposes.

    anantksundarammuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 65 of 90
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,068member
    mfryd said:
    NYC362 said:
    Come on already.  Google and Facebook have been doing this for years.   Suddenly when Apple wants to do the same thing, everyone gets twisted.

    It is just like the 1000 gas powered cars that will catch on fire get not a work of national attention, but one Tesla goes up in flames and there's a world wide news bulletin like it's the end of the world. 
    While Google and Facebook have been scanning user data for years, they are honest and open about it.  They make their money by selling information they glean about their customers.  Google doesn't charge for Gmail because they learn more about you when you use their services, and hence make more profit selling that higher grade information.

    On the other hand, Apple prides itself on protecting the privacy of their customers.  A key sales point in buying into the Apple ecosystem is that Apple does everything they possibly can in order to protect your data.  They even fight court orders requiring them to add back doors to iPhone local encryption.

    Under Apple's new policy, every image you upload to your iCloud library will be scanned, and compared against a list of blacklisted images.  If you have too many blacklisted images, you will be reported to the authorities.  

    Initially, the blacklist will only contain child porn images.  I can easily imagine a narcissistic leader ordering Apple to add to that list images which are critical to the government.   Imagine a photo of a President that makes him look foolish, shows him in a compromising position, or reveals a public statement to be a lie.  Such a President would have a strong incentive to add these photos to the list.  Remember, Apple doesn't know what the blacklisted photos look like, Apple only has digital fingerprints of these images (it would be illegal for Apple to posses Child Porn, even if it was for a good cause).

    Apple fights to keep out back doors because they know that once those tools exist, at some point they will be used inappropriately by the government.  While I applaud Apple's goal of fighting child abuse, I know that once this tool exists, at some point it will be used inappropriately by the government.

    One of the key beliefs in the US Constitution is a healthy distrust of government.  We have three branches of government, each to keep watch on the other two.  We have a free press and free speech so that the public can stay informed as to what government is doing.  We have free and fair elections so the people can act as the ultimate watchdog by voting out representatives that are not doing what they should be doing.

    I strongly urge Apple to protect the privacy of our images by killing this feature.   At best, it will get the criminals use other services for sharing their personal photos.  At worst, it is a tool that can be used by the government to prevent free speech.
    I don’t believe for one second the stated reason is the real one.   This was probably wanted by China (Apple always kowtows to Ci) for surveillance.  Aren’t iCloud accounts on Chinese servers.
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 66 of 90
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 142member
    mfryd said:
    NYC362 said:
    ...
    ...
    You can imagine whatever you like, but the system uses the same NCMEC child porn database utilized by Microsoft, Google, Dropbox, Twitter, etc.. Your little fantasy about the POTUS adding images to it would affect every one of those major cloud storage providers, not just Apple. 

    There is nothing new here. You’re not forced to use any of these commercial cloud services to host your images online. 

    And reporting child porn libraries to the authorities is not some choice Apple makes — they’re required to by law. As are the other cloud storage services. You can’t store child porn, it’s against the law. 
    Apple's program does not apply to images published online.  It applies to private image libraries that are backed up via Apple's services.

    Although Apple claims that they will not be using any single database.  They insist that they will get multiple databases from different organizations.  They will make sure that these organizations are not under the authority of the same government.  They will only flag images that appear on multiple lists.  Thus they can easily miss images from the NCMEC database.

    If this was something that was required by law, then Apple should simply say that.   Instead they are trying to claim that it is something they are doing because the goal of protecting children outweighs their customer's right to privacy.   If that's really how they believe, then their next step should be to start reviewing email and text messages.  After all, no child pornographer deserves privacy, and those that are not child pornographers have nothing to worry about.   After all, why do law abiding citizens need to worry about governmental searches?  Why do law abiding citizens need any privacy from the government?

    Of course, the answer to that is that the US Constitution requires it.  The US is based on the idea that government should not have unlimited power, and the people have a right to privacy.  These sorts of searches should not be happening without demonstrating to a judge that reasonable cause exists and getting permission from that judge.

    Now you might claim that this is not a governmental search, but a search by a private company.  However that is not consistent with the list of prohibited images coming from a governmental agency, or the private company being required by law to search.
    anantksundaramsteven n.muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 67 of 90
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,496moderator

    I don’t think this is an issue of Apple’s “messaging” or understanding by users. I still have three serious concerns that don’t seem to be addressed. 


    #1 Apple has acknowledged the privacy impact of this technology if misapplied by totalitarian governments. The response has been, “we’ll say no”. In the past the answer hasn’t been no with China and Saudi Arabia. This occurred when Apple was already powerful and wealthy. If a government compelled Apple, or if Apple one day is not in a dominant position they may not be able to say no even if they want to. 


    #2 We’ve recently observed zero-day exploits being used by multiple private companies to bypass the existing protections that exist in Apple’s platforms. Interfaces like this increase the attack surface that malicious actors can exploit. 


    #3 Up until this point the expectation from users has been that the data on your device was private and that on-device processing was used to prevent data from being uploaded to cloud services. The new system turns that expectation around and now on-device processing is being used as a means to upload to the cloud. This system, though narrowly tailored to illegal content at this time, changes the operating system’s role from the user’s perspective and places the device itself in a policing and policy enforcement role. This breaks the level of trust that computer users have had since the beginning of computing, that the device is “yours” in the same way that your car or home is “your” property. 


    Ultimately I think solving a human nature problem with technology isn’t the true solution. I think Apple is burning reputation with this move that was hard won. In my opinion law enforcement and judicial process should be used to rectify crime rather than technology providers like Apple. 

    #1 is a red herring.  Totalitarian governments don’t need Apple to have already implemented a mechanism they can employ for spying.  They could simple tell Apple to create one and could have at any time over the last ten years.  

    #2 is a red herring.  There’s always an attack surface and I don’t hear you complaining about any of the other functionality implemented by Apple that has created the rest of the attack surface that already exists.  Because it’s generally accepted that such opportunities exist to create exploits and then Apple, or Microsoft or Google or whomever, work constantly to close them.  Just business as usual in this regard.

    #3 is not valid.  Think of it this way.  If you use a photo inspector tool on your iPhone it can tell you when and where a photo was taken, the resolution if the photo, color balance and a host of other attributes and associated information.  There’s likely a checksum or some other piece of data generated against your photos when you send them to anywhere, so that the receiving party can quickly check that the photo wasn’t corrupted during transmission.  Including the photo, encrypted, when sent to iCloud.  Nobody here seems to be barking about that.  So now there’s one extra bit of data generated, a hash, that is meaningless to any observer and therefore doesn’t reveal to any observer the content of your photo (no more than a checksum would) except when compared against a database of photos that are illegal to possess.  Then, up on the server, where Apple is not allowed to store any of the photos represented by that database of illegal photos, the hash is compared.  Apple protects themselves from storing any photo it cannot legally store and fulfills its legal obligation to report, after some validation, that an illegal photo was attempted to be uploaded.  The iPhone is NOT placed in a policing or policy enforcement role.  It’s merely adding  a bit of data that allows the iCloud server to do the policing, which is the entity that is required by law to do so.  

    Let’s examine this a bit further, shall we?  Let’s say that Apple did not create the hash on the iPhone but instead created it against the photo after uploading to iCloud.  Then Apple would need to decrypt your iCloud photos to do so, and this would require Apple to have your iCloud encryption keys.  That would give Apple the ability to decrypt ALL your iCloud data, and it would give access to that data to law enforcement
    when they demand Apple turn over all the iCloud data Apple has on file for a customer when law enforcement issues a warrant for that customer’s data.  So you see that the implementation Apple is employing is actually one that protects the vast majority of your data; all except for any photos that you are already not allowed, by law, to possess.  Are we grokking it now?  

    Regarding your statement that law enforcement and judicial process should be used to rectify crime rather than technology providers like Apple, are you aware of wire tapping laws, requiring telecoms to provide technology access to allow law enforcement to listen in on phone conversations back in the days before internet voice calling?  You’re living in a world where law enforcement has long been using technology, and requiring technology providers to enable them to do so.  A bit late to be making first principal arguments on the matter.  
    fastasleepDetnator
  • Reply 68 of 90
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,496moderator
    mfryd said:
    mfryd said:
    NYC362 said:
    ...
    ...
    I fail to see how a foreign government has had to wait for this hash comparison technique to be implemented by Apple before they could demand that Apple start scanning for pictures of their leader or any other subject.  The very nature of a dictator or totalitarian implies they could demand any kind of functionality they wish in return for access to their markets.  They didn’t need to wait for Apple to create a tool that could be applied to their dastardly schemes; they could simply demand that Apple do what they want done regarding spying on their citizenry and hold access to their market hostage until they get it.  So your argument holds exactly zero water.  
    Governments can demand all they want.  If Apple does not have the capability to comply, then they cannot comply.  If they have the ability than they do.

    This is why Apple has refused to implement a backdoor in iPhone encryption.  As long as they are unable to comply with an order to unlock an iPhone, then they can't comply.   Apple has made it very clear that they understand that once a capability exists, that governments will force them to use it for governmental purposes.

    Of course Apple could create a back door. They simply have refused to do so.  And this should tell you something about that dire future you and others seem to want to predict.  It does not matter whether there is already a mechanism that could be deployed or not.  In every imagined situation a mechanism COULD be created.  Governments therefore have not needed to wait until one has been created.  Therefore the argument in context of this mechanism is a red herring.  
    Detnator
  • Reply 69 of 90
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,496moderator
    mfryd said:
    mfryd said:
    NYC362 said:
    ...
    ...
    You can imagine whatever you like, but the system uses the same NCMEC child porn database utilized by Microsoft, Google, Dropbox, Twitter, etc.. Your little fantasy about the POTUS adding images to it would affect every one of those major cloud storage providers, not just Apple. 

    There is nothing new here. You’re not forced to use any of these commercial cloud services to host your images online. 

    And reporting child porn libraries to the authorities is not some choice Apple makes — they’re required to by law. As are the other cloud storage services. You can’t store child porn, it’s against the law. 
    Apple's program does not apply to images published online.  It applies to private image libraries that are backed up via Apple's services.

    Although Apple claims that they will not be using any single database.  They insist that they will get multiple databases from different organizations.  They will make sure that these organizations are not under the authority of the same government.  They will only flag images that appear on multiple lists.  Thus they can easily miss images from the NCMEC database.

    If this was something that was required by law, then Apple should simply say that.   Instead they are trying to claim that it is something they are doing because the goal of protecting children outweighs their customer's right to privacy.   If that's really how they believe, then their next step should be to start reviewing email and text messages.  After all, no child pornographer deserves privacy, and those that are not child pornographers have nothing to worry about.   After all, why do law abiding citizens need to worry about governmental searches?  Why do law abiding citizens need any privacy from the government?

    Of course, the answer to that is that the US Constitution requires it.  The US is based on the idea that government should not have unlimited power, and the people have a right to privacy.  These sorts of searches should not be happening without demonstrating to a judge that reasonable cause exists and getting permission from that judge.

    Now you might claim that this is not a governmental search, but a search by a private company.  However that is not consistent with the list of prohibited images coming from a governmental agency, or the private company being required by law to search.
    Apple isn’t so much trying to enforce the law against its customer as it is attempting to ensure that the company itself doesn’t break the law by storing illegal images on its servers.  I think it has the right to do that and I think it’s taking the best possible approach to doing so, which maintains user privacy more so than other companies that scan unencrypted photos on their servers.  
    edited August 2021 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 70 of 90
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,156member
    mfryd said:

    Now you might claim that this is not a governmental search, but a search by a private company.  However that is not consistent with the list of prohibited images coming from a governmental agency, or the private company being required by law to search.
    Except NCMEC isn't a government agency, and Apple isn't being required by law to do this search, they're doing it voluntarily.  So the US Constitution has little relevance.
    argonaut
  • Reply 71 of 90
    darkvader said:
    The message is not the problem.&

    The spyware is the problem.
    It’s not spyware. It’s the exact same child porn hash checking used by Microsoft, Google, Dropbox, Twitter, and Tumblr. Nobody wants to host child pornography on their own servers, and they won’t let you upload them. If you use any of those services, you’re already using CSAM hash checking. 

    You are free to not pay to use iCloud Photos and your problem is solved. 
    Watch the interview! Frederighi's word salad is distressing. He simply avoids tough questions, especially the one on backdoors. Stern does an outstanding job, but should have pushed him harder.

    It's not about CSAM.
    There really are no tough questions surrounding this issue, but there have been some foolish an ignorant ones.  
    Nonsensical assertion. 

    Care to provide the answer to the 'backdoor' question that Joanna Stern asked (twice)? Or at least provide your interpretation of Frederighi's non-answer answer?
    edited August 2021 gatorguy
  • Reply 72 of 90
    roakeroake Posts: 783member
    sflocal said:
    If this was such a great idea, why are thousands of Apple employees singing an open letter against it? Craig keeps saying "we". Who exactly are "we"? Apple has had a problem with its executives and their ideas for a long time now. It's why the walled garden has become more like a walled prison for its customers. When Apple has to lobby against common sense ideas like the right to repair and the right to install whatever apps you want on the devices you own, you know there is a problem. With warrantless spying on personal data, Apple made it clear that they need new management. It is a good thing that there is a pandemic or Apple execs might find the crowd booing at them during their next live product launch.
    Because those "thousands of Apple employees" may just be as ignorant as the rest of the people that are jumping in without understand the full story.

    Apple did a spectacular blunder in how they publicized this.  No doubt about that.  What people refuse to see and understand is that CSAM-scanning is a law.  All cloud service providers - which includes Apple - are required to run CSAM scanning.  My physical iPhone is still as secure as always.  Nothing changes on that.  Zero back door.  

    My iCloud data is something else.  I know it's controlled by Apple and given the choice, I trust Apple to be more secure than any of the other players out there, including Dropbox, Google, and Microsoft.  If they are required by law to scan my cloud data (not my iPhone) for CSAM, there's nothing I can do to stop that.  I could choose to not use iCloud.  Perfectly acceptable and it's my choice.  I don't lose sleep over it.

    However, if my government decides to abuse the CSAM system, and insert hashes for other non-CSAM object, then guarantee there will be countless of security research shops that will raise bloody hell like when Snowden opened up the NSA abuse.

    I still trust Apple to remain at the top of user-level privacy.  People are having hissy-fits to a problem that I don't see as really existing yet.

    If you don't want data that is not in your physical possession scanned, then STOP using cloud services.  WTF, people like you just want to make a mountain out of a molehill.
    You simply do not value privacy.
  • Reply 73 of 90
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,054member
    dewme said:
    This is all part of being a compassionate adult. There are times when you have to put aside your selfish inclinations, personal comfort, and tribal boundaries to help other people who cannot help themselves. This is always the case with adults who are implicitly and morally responsible for safeguarding and protecting children. As a compassionate human being, if you’re in a position to help protect a child, you help. This is non-negotiable. 

    There are too many who have planted their flag and are willing to die on their own little hill of ideological purity. We, especially Americans and countries that have been saved by American intervention, are very fortunate that these little hills are few and far between. America could have stood firmly on their ideology of neutrality, isolationism, and nonintervention during both World War 1 and World War 2.

    Fortunately, if somewhat belatedly, America put pragmatism, compassion, and a sense of global unity out front and intervened. No doubt that some folks were appalled by the sacrifice of ideological purity and the terrible price that was paid once America decided to act. But action was needed and the cost and consequences were and still are viewed in the free world as having been an acceptable sacrifice for the benefits achieved. 

    If our children are the lifeline to the future of humanity, why are we even arguing about the need to act? We have new technological tools that can make a difference closer to the source. The “law & order” chest thumping which mostly treats the symptoms and post damage aftermath aren’t yielding sufficient results. 

    If someone has an issue with the techniques being used, please bring your alternative approaches forward - now. Doing nothing other than speculating about what-ifs and what-abouts is no longer morally acceptable. As adults we are responsible for protecting our children, all children in fact. There is no hidden agenda here, it’s simply Apple, like so many other companies, following through and acting compassionately and responsibly, with some additional prodding from the general public and our representatives. 
    The above is more of the same tired defense of "doing such-and-such for the GREATER GOOD."  "The sacrifices were worth it," so many say!  "We must do it to be mature and responsible adults," they say!  Are you aware we have so many laws on the books that no one can perfectly obey those endless rules perpetually?  The sheer abundance of laws has made all of us into law breakers.  It's horrifically sad.  Even if one ponders traffic laws alone, that is true.  A cop can nail you if he follows you around long enough.  This isn't a guess on my part.  Many a law officer has admitted that flat out.  Those so-called "responsible adults" are the reason why laws perpetually increase and surveillance becomes more intrusive and prevalent.  Despite all the new laws, rules and restrictions, the same "responsible adults" continue calling for even more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more spying, more control over the human condition.  But to what end result?  Paradise?  Not even close.

    Americans are so obsessed with doing good that legalism has become mainstream.  The harsh letter of the law prevails over the spirit of the law.   Everybody points the finger at somebody else.  Everyone is a wannabe lawyer.  People sue each other left and right.  Everyone wants to blame the other guy for breaking one our endless rules.  

    The biggest problem in America is not the lack of much needed rules, but having too many existing ones.  We need to elect people to nuke many of our existing laws, to better ensure America really is that so-called "land of the free."  Many abuses will come from expanded freedom in an immoral society, but any lover of freedom knows it is worth the risk.  It is that kind of individual liberty that many of America's finest have sacrificed their lives for.  You aren't a true proponent of liberty until you afford your neighbor more liberty than you afford your own self.  Patrick Henry knew this well.

    As to the necon view that America needs to Police the Planet because of all the good it's done, I profoundly disagree as a staunch liberty-embracing conservative.  It's time we compel our allies to tax their own people to pay for planet policing.  The American taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for keeping the planet under control.  Empires of the past would capture numerous countries and make them pay tribute in order to keep the peace.  Today, the American taxpayer alone keeps the peace and it isn't sustainable.  And on top of all that, America's interventionism has not always produced a good result.  In many cases, it hasn't worked at all.  Look at how long we were in Afghanistan and look at how much we spent, and now the we are pulling out (and we need to), look how fast the country is going back to the Taliban stronghold it was prior to our arrival there.  All we do is tax and spent  and go to war -- all for the GREATER GOOD.  Both Democrats and Republicans do this.  It's time that silliness ends.  And the very act of NOT being policeman of the world isn't about America becoming an isolated nation at all.  American can still very much be a global player without American taxpayers footing the bill to protect, police and bully all other countries.

    Apple is a private company and it can do what it wants in regards to scanning our photos on-device and alert authorities, but the key issue is whether the public will stand for it.  I currently do not because I will not be persuaded by the crazy "it's for the kids, it's for the greater good, it's because we're mature and responsible adults" arguments.  People always plead for the innocents and protection of the general populace in order to bring about every new law, regulation or corporate rule.  But all that new lawmaking does is take more of our liberty and privacy away in exchange for a statistically small and often insignificant benefit to a very small number of people.  Making the 99 face hardship to save the 1 sounds noble, but it isn't always practical or desirable, especially when that hardship is never ending.  And when one ponders that every rule and law and regulation imposes a tiny bit of hardship on society, the hardship really adds up in the end.  But here's the kicker... After all those fancy new protections are implemented, the world remains filled with evil, and it only gets worse each year.  That is partly why some states have given up and legalized certain drugs, since they simply cannot pack everybody in prison.  We have a MORAL PROBLEM today, not a problem stemming from not enough laws, rules or surveillance!

    It is a tragic crying shame, and a travesty beyond words, that innocents are exploited; BUT, the majority of kids are NOT being exploited.  My two kids certainly aren't, nor are their friends or the kids of people we know.  More kids face abuse in the home from their own parents than kids who are sexually exploited via pics posted online.  We don't need another set of overbearing laws, rules or on device scanning that open the door to huge problems for the majority only for the sake of preaching about a distinct minority of innocent people.  And that isn't to say we should do nothing.  Let's strive to help the innocents in a different way by changing our morals as a society. It's time to stop the loud voices preaching in self-righteous fervor to get companies and governments to act in concocting some great new plan to rid the world of evil while evil remains unabated as our freedoms grow fewer and fewer in number.

    Want that "alternative approach" now?  Do you really want to make the world a better place?  Be part Vulcan and keep your emotions, your desire to feel good, and your sexual impulses in check, and teach your kids to do the same.  That alone would reduce our drug problem tremendously, not to mention sexual abuse, exploitation, domestic abuse, etc.. Teach our young people to identify wrongs they see in every day life and to act against those wrongs as an individual, rather than force the majority to act against wrongs as a group by some new law or regulation.  Teach people that a soft answer turns away wrath.  Forgive and completely forget, 70x7.  Love others as you love your own self (e.g., help the less fortunate, homeless, etc.).  When wronged, turn the other cheek. Practice what you preach.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And the list of good we need to do doesn't end there.

    If the majority of people in American did those MORAL things, it would have a tremendously positive impact on society without the need to add yet another law, rule, regulation, or on-device surveillance routine.  The reason why our laws, regulations, rules and surveillance is so widespread is because society today refuses to act morally.  That is separate and distinct from merely being a "responsible and mature adult."  Endlessly adding new laws as a substitute for moral behavior will NOT turn the tide and make society better.  You cannot legislate morality nor surveil people into right behavior.

    In all our decisions, let us err on the side of liberty and privacy.  More people stand to benefit from the expansion of freedom than from restriction of freedom.  Being free from on-device snooping and scanning is a critically important aspect of freedom.


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 74 of 90
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    mfryd said:
    mfryd said:
    NYC362 said:
    ...
    ...
    You can imagine whatever you like, but the system uses the same NCMEC child porn database utilized by Microsoft, Google, Dropbox, Twitter, etc.. Your little fantasy about the POTUS adding images to it would affect every one of those major cloud storage providers, not just Apple. 

    There is nothing new here. You’re not forced to use any of these commercial cloud services to host your images online. 

    And reporting child porn libraries to the authorities is not some choice Apple makes — they’re required to by law. As are the other cloud storage services. You can’t store child porn, it’s against the law. 
    ...

    Now you might claim that this is not a governmental search, but a search by a private company.  However that is not consistent with the list of prohibited images coming from a governmental agency, or the private company being required by law to search.
    Are you suggesting it's ok for a private company (which is essentially an autocracy) to invade your privacy, but not your government?
    While I agree with your post overall, I am befuddled why some Americans would trust a private company while distrusting their own government.

    canukstorm
  • Reply 75 of 90
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    jdw said:
    dewme said:
    This is all part of being a compassionate adult. There are times when you have to put aside your selfish inclinations, personal comfort, and tribal boundaries to help other people who cannot help themselves. This is always the case with adults who are implicitly and morally responsible for safeguarding and protecting children. As a compassionate human being, if you’re in a position to help protect a child, you help. This is non-negotiable. 

    There are too many who have planted their flag and are willing to die on their own little hill of ideological purity. We, especially Americans and countries that have been saved by American intervention, are very fortunate that these little hills are few and far between. America could have stood firmly on their ideology of neutrality, isolationism, and nonintervention during both World War 1 and World War 2.

    Fortunately, if somewhat belatedly, America put pragmatism, compassion, and a sense of global unity out front and intervened. No doubt that some folks were appalled by the sacrifice of ideological purity and the terrible price that was paid once America decided to act. But action was needed and the cost and consequences were and still are viewed in the free world as having been an acceptable sacrifice for the benefits achieved. 

    If our children are the lifeline to the future of humanity, why are we even arguing about the need to act? We have new technological tools that can make a difference closer to the source. The “law & order” chest thumping which mostly treats the symptoms and post damage aftermath aren’t yielding sufficient results. 

    If someone has an issue with the techniques being used, please bring your alternative approaches forward - now. Doing nothing other than speculating about what-ifs and what-abouts is no longer morally acceptable. As adults we are responsible for protecting our children, all children in fact. There is no hidden agenda here, it’s simply Apple, like so many other companies, following through and acting compassionately and responsibly, with some additional prodding from the general public and our representatives. 
    The above is more of the same tired defense of "doing such-and-such for the GREATER GOOD."  "The sacrifices were worth it," so many say!  "We must do it to be mature and responsible adults," they say!  Are you aware we have so many laws on the books that no one can perfectly obey those endless rules perpetually?  The sheer abundance of laws has made all of us into law breakers.  It's horrifically sad.  Even if one ponders traffic laws alone, that is true.  A cop can nail you if he follows you around long enough.  This isn't a guess on my part.  Many a law officer has admitted that flat out.  Those so-called "responsible adults" are the reason why laws perpetually increase and surveillance becomes more intrusive and prevalent.  Despite all the new laws, rules and restrictions, the same "responsible adults" continue calling for even more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more spying, more control over the human condition.  But to what end result?  Paradise?  Not even close.

    Americans are so obsessed with doing good that legalism has become mainstream.  The harsh letter of the law prevails over the spirit of the law.   Everybody points the finger at somebody else.  Everyone is a wannabe lawyer.  People sue each other left and right.  Everyone wants to blame the other guy for breaking one our endless rules.  

    The biggest problem in America is not the lack of much needed rules, but having too many existing ones.  We need to elect people to nuke many of our existing laws, to better ensure America really is that so-called "land of the free."  Many abuses will come from expanded freedom in an immoral society, but any lover of freedom knows it is worth the risk.  It is that kind of individual liberty that many of America's finest have sacrificed their lives for.  You aren't a true proponent of liberty until you afford your neighbor more liberty than you afford your own self.  Patrick Henry knew this well.

    As to the necon view that America needs to Police the Planet because of all the good it's done, I profoundly disagree as a staunch liberty-embracing conservative.  It's time we compel our allies to tax their own people to pay for planet policing.  The American taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for keeping the planet under control.  Empires of the past would capture numerous countries and make them pay tribute in order to keep the peace.  Today, the American taxpayer alone keeps the peace and it isn't sustainable.  And on top of all that, America's interventionism has not always produced a good result.  In many cases, it hasn't worked at all.  Look at how long we were in Afghanistan and look at how much we spent, and now the we are pulling out (and we need to), look how fast the country is going back to the Taliban stronghold it was prior to our arrival there.  All we do is tax and spent  and go to war -- all for the GREATER GOOD.  Both Democrats and Republicans do this.  It's time that silliness ends.  And the very act of NOT being policeman of the world isn't about America becoming an isolated nation at all.  American can still very much be a global player without American taxpayers footing the bill to protect, police and bully all other countries.

    Apple is a private company and it can do what it wants in regards to scanning our photos on-device and alert authorities, but the key issue is whether the public will stand for it.  I currently do not because I will not be persuaded by the crazy "it's for the kids, it's for the greater good, it's because we're mature and responsible adults" arguments.  People always plead for the innocents and protection of the general populace in order to bring about every new law, regulation or corporate rule.  But all that new lawmaking does is take more of our liberty and privacy away in exchange for a statistically small and often insignificant benefit to a very small number of people.  Making the 99 face hardship to save the 1 sounds noble, but it isn't always practical or desirable, especially when that hardship is never ending.  And when one ponders that every rule and law and regulation imposes a tiny bit of hardship on society, the hardship really adds up in the end.  But here's the kicker... After all those fancy new protections are implemented, the world remains filled with evil, and it only gets worse each year.  That is partly why some states have given up and legalized certain drugs, since they simply cannot pack everybody in prison.  We have a MORAL PROBLEM today, not a problem stemming from not enough laws, rules or surveillance!

    It is a tragic crying shame, and a travesty beyond words, that innocents are exploited; BUT, the majority of kids are NOT being exploited.  My two kids certainly aren't, nor are their friends or the kids of people we know.  More kids face abuse in the home from their own parents than kids who are sexually exploited via pics posted online.  We don't need another set of overbearing laws, rules or on device scanning that open the door to huge problems for the majority only for the sake of preaching about a distinct minority of innocent people.  And that isn't to say we should do nothing.  Let's strive to help the innocents in a different way by changing our morals as a society. It's time to stop the loud voices preaching in self-righteous fervor to get companies and governments to act in concocting some great new plan to rid the world of evil while evil remains unabated as our freedoms grow fewer and fewer in number.

    Want that "alternative approach" now?  Do you really want to make the world a better place?  Be part Vulcan and keep your emotions, your desire to feel good, and your sexual impulses in check, and teach your kids to do the same.  That alone would reduce our drug problem tremendously, not to mention sexual abuse, exploitation, domestic abuse, etc.. Teach our young people to identify wrongs they see in every day life and to act against those wrongs as an individual, rather than force the majority to act against wrongs as a group by some new law or regulation.  Teach people that a soft answer turns away wrath.  Forgive and completely forget, 70x7.  Love others as you love your own self (e.g., help the less fortunate, homeless, etc.).  When wronged, turn the other cheek. Practice what you preach.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And the list of good we need to do doesn't end there.

    If the majority of people in American did those MORAL things, it would have a tremendously positive impact on society without the need to add yet another law, rule, regulation, or on-device surveillance routine.  The reason why our laws, regulations, rules and surveillance is so widespread is because society today refuses to act morally.  That is separate and distinct from merely being a "responsible and mature adult."  Endlessly adding new laws as a substitute for moral behavior will NOT turn the tide and make society better.  You cannot legislate morality nor surveil people into right behavior.

    In all our decisions, let us err on the side of liberty and privacy.  More people stand to benefit from the expansion of freedom than from restriction of freedom.  Being free from on-device snooping and scanning is a critically important aspect of freedom.



    That's pure ideological modern Libertarianism....  
    Unfortunately, we know it doesn't work.  Instead, rules are set to create a safe and stable society where people can thrive.  And government is there to create those rules -- usually in response to some violation of common good and decency.

    But some people seem to prefer anything-goes anarchy.   Which is pretty weird because those same people protest against "illegal aliens" seeking refuge in this country often from that same anything-goes anarchy.
    tycho_macuserradarthekat
  • Reply 76 of 90
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,156member
    jdw said:
    dewme said:
    This is all part of being a compassionate adult. There are times when you have to put aside your selfish inclinations, personal comfort, and tribal boundaries to help other people who cannot help themselves. This is always the case with adults who are implicitly and morally responsible for safeguarding and protecting children. As a compassionate human being, if you’re in a position to help protect a child, you help. This is non-negotiable. 

    There are too many who have planted their flag and are willing to die on their own little hill of ideological purity. We, especially Americans and countries that have been saved by American intervention, are very fortunate that these little hills are few and far between. America could have stood firmly on their ideology of neutrality, isolationism, and nonintervention during both World War 1 and World War 2.

    Fortunately, if somewhat belatedly, America put pragmatism, compassion, and a sense of global unity out front and intervened. No doubt that some folks were appalled by the sacrifice of ideological purity and the terrible price that was paid once America decided to act. But action was needed and the cost and consequences were and still are viewed in the free world as having been an acceptable sacrifice for the benefits achieved. 

    If our children are the lifeline to the future of humanity, why are we even arguing about the need to act? We have new technological tools that can make a difference closer to the source. The “law & order” chest thumping which mostly treats the symptoms and post damage aftermath aren’t yielding sufficient results. 

    If someone has an issue with the techniques being used, please bring your alternative approaches forward - now. Doing nothing other than speculating about what-ifs and what-abouts is no longer morally acceptable. As adults we are responsible for protecting our children, all children in fact. There is no hidden agenda here, it’s simply Apple, like so many other companies, following through and acting compassionately and responsibly, with some additional prodding from the general public and our representatives. 
    The above is more of the same tired defense of "doing such-and-such for the GREATER GOOD."  "The sacrifices were worth it," so many say!  "We must do it to be mature and responsible adults," they say!  Are you aware we have so many laws on the books that no one can perfectly obey those endless rules perpetually?  The sheer abundance of laws has made all of us into law breakers.  It's horrifically sad.  Even if one ponders traffic laws alone, that is true.  A cop can nail you if he follows you around long enough.  This isn't a guess on my part.  Many a law officer has admitted that flat out.  Those so-called "responsible adults" are the reason why laws perpetually increase and surveillance becomes more intrusive and prevalent.  Despite all the new laws, rules and restrictions, the same "responsible adults" continue calling for even more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more spying, more control over the human condition.  But to what end result?  Paradise?  Not even close.

    Americans are so obsessed with doing good that legalism has become mainstream.  The harsh letter of the law prevails over the spirit of the law.   Everybody points the finger at somebody else.  Everyone is a wannabe lawyer.  People sue each other left and right.  Everyone wants to blame the other guy for breaking one our endless rules.  

    The biggest problem in America is not the lack of much needed rules, but having too many existing ones.  We need to elect people to nuke many of our existing laws, to better ensure America really is that so-called "land of the free."  Many abuses will come from expanded freedom in an immoral society, but any lover of freedom knows it is worth the risk.  It is that kind of individual liberty that many of America's finest have sacrificed their lives for.  You aren't a true proponent of liberty until you afford your neighbor more liberty than you afford your own self.  Patrick Henry knew this well.

    As to the necon view that America needs to Police the Planet because of all the good it's done, I profoundly disagree as a staunch liberty-embracing conservative.  It's time we compel our allies to tax their own people to pay for planet policing.  The American taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for keeping the planet under control.  Empires of the past would capture numerous countries and make them pay tribute in order to keep the peace.  Today, the American taxpayer alone keeps the peace and it isn't sustainable.  And on top of all that, America's interventionism has not always produced a good result.  In many cases, it hasn't worked at all.  Look at how long we were in Afghanistan and look at how much we spent, and now the we are pulling out (and we need to), look how fast the country is going back to the Taliban stronghold it was prior to our arrival there.  All we do is tax and spent  and go to war -- all for the GREATER GOOD.  Both Democrats and Republicans do this.  It's time that silliness ends.  And the very act of NOT being policeman of the world isn't about America becoming an isolated nation at all.  American can still very much be a global player without American taxpayers footing the bill to protect, police and bully all other countries.

    Apple is a private company and it can do what it wants in regards to scanning our photos on-device and alert authorities, but the key issue is whether the public will stand for it.  I currently do not because I will not be persuaded by the crazy "it's for the kids, it's for the greater good, it's because we're mature and responsible adults" arguments.  People always plead for the innocents and protection of the general populace in order to bring about every new law, regulation or corporate rule.  But all that new lawmaking does is take more of our liberty and privacy away in exchange for a statistically small and often insignificant benefit to a very small number of people.  Making the 99 face hardship to save the 1 sounds noble, but it isn't always practical or desirable, especially when that hardship is never ending.  And when one ponders that every rule and law and regulation imposes a tiny bit of hardship on society, the hardship really adds up in the end.  But here's the kicker... After all those fancy new protections are implemented, the world remains filled with evil, and it only gets worse each year.  That is partly why some states have given up and legalized certain drugs, since they simply cannot pack everybody in prison.  We have a MORAL PROBLEM today, not a problem stemming from not enough laws, rules or surveillance!

    It is a tragic crying shame, and a travesty beyond words, that innocents are exploited; BUT, the majority of kids are NOT being exploited.  My two kids certainly aren't, nor are their friends or the kids of people we know.  More kids face abuse in the home from their own parents than kids who are sexually exploited via pics posted online.  We don't need another set of overbearing laws, rules or on device scanning that open the door to huge problems for the majority only for the sake of preaching about a distinct minority of innocent people.  And that isn't to say we should do nothing.  Let's strive to help the innocents in a different way by changing our morals as a society. It's time to stop the loud voices preaching in self-righteous fervor to get companies and governments to act in concocting some great new plan to rid the world of evil while evil remains unabated as our freedoms grow fewer and fewer in number.

    Want that "alternative approach" now?  Do you really want to make the world a better place?  Be part Vulcan and keep your emotions, your desire to feel good, and your sexual impulses in check, and teach your kids to do the same.  That alone would reduce our drug problem tremendously, not to mention sexual abuse, exploitation, domestic abuse, etc.. Teach our young people to identify wrongs they see in every day life and to act against those wrongs as an individual, rather than force the majority to act against wrongs as a group by some new law or regulation.  Teach people that a soft answer turns away wrath.  Forgive and completely forget, 70x7.  Love others as you love your own self (e.g., help the less fortunate, homeless, etc.).  When wronged, turn the other cheek. Practice what you preach.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And the list of good we need to do doesn't end there.

    If the majority of people in American did those MORAL things, it would have a tremendously positive impact on society without the need to add yet another law, rule, regulation, or on-device surveillance routine.  The reason why our laws, regulations, rules and surveillance is so widespread is because society today refuses to act morally.  That is separate and distinct from merely being a "responsible and mature adult."  Endlessly adding new laws as a substitute for moral behavior will NOT turn the tide and make society better.  You cannot legislate morality nor surveil people into right behavior.

    In all our decisions, let us err on the side of liberty and privacy.  More people stand to benefit from the expansion of freedom than from restriction of freedom.  Being free from on-device snooping and scanning is a critically important aspect of freedom.
     :smiley: 

    What a pile of wishy-washy self-righteous crap.
    dewmeargonautradarthekatfastasleepDetnator
  • Reply 77 of 90
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,054member
    jdw said:
    dewme said:
    This is all part of being a compassionate adult. There are times when you have to put aside your selfish inclinations, personal comfort, and tribal boundaries to help other people who cannot help themselves. This is always the case with adults who are implicitly and morally responsible for safeguarding and protecting children. As a compassionate human being, if you’re in a position to help protect a child, you help. This is non-negotiable. 

    There are too many who have planted their flag and are willing to die on their own little hill of ideological purity. We, especially Americans and countries that have been saved by American intervention, are very fortunate that these little hills are few and far between. America could have stood firmly on their ideology of neutrality, isolationism, and nonintervention during both World War 1 and World War 2.

    Fortunately, if somewhat belatedly, America put pragmatism, compassion, and a sense of global unity out front and intervened. No doubt that some folks were appalled by the sacrifice of ideological purity and the terrible price that was paid once America decided to act. But action was needed and the cost and consequences were and still are viewed in the free world as having been an acceptable sacrifice for the benefits achieved. 

    If our children are the lifeline to the future of humanity, why are we even arguing about the need to act? We have new technological tools that can make a difference closer to the source. The “law & order” chest thumping which mostly treats the symptoms and post damage aftermath aren’t yielding sufficient results. 

    If someone has an issue with the techniques being used, please bring your alternative approaches forward - now. Doing nothing other than speculating about what-ifs and what-abouts is no longer morally acceptable. As adults we are responsible for protecting our children, all children in fact. There is no hidden agenda here, it’s simply Apple, like so many other companies, following through and acting compassionately and responsibly, with some additional prodding from the general public and our representatives. 
    The above is more of the same tired defense of "doing such-and-such for the GREATER GOOD."  "The sacrifices were worth it," so many say!  "We must do it to be mature and responsible adults," they say!  Are you aware we have so many laws on the books that no one can perfectly obey those endless rules perpetually?  The sheer abundance of laws has made all of us into law breakers.  It's horrifically sad.  Even if one ponders traffic laws alone, that is true.  A cop can nail you if he follows you around long enough.  This isn't a guess on my part.  Many a law officer has admitted that flat out.  Those so-called "responsible adults" are the reason why laws perpetually increase and surveillance becomes more intrusive and prevalent.  Despite all the new laws, rules and restrictions, the same "responsible adults" continue calling for even more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more spying, more control over the human condition.  But to what end result?  Paradise?  Not even close.

    Americans are so obsessed with doing good that legalism has become mainstream.  The harsh letter of the law prevails over the spirit of the law.   Everybody points the finger at somebody else.  Everyone is a wannabe lawyer.  People sue each other left and right.  Everyone wants to blame the other guy for breaking one our endless rules.  

    The biggest problem in America is not the lack of much needed rules, but having too many existing ones.  We need to elect people to nuke many of our existing laws, to better ensure America really is that so-called "land of the free."  Many abuses will come from expanded freedom in an immoral society, but any lover of freedom knows it is worth the risk.  It is that kind of individual liberty that many of America's finest have sacrificed their lives for.  You aren't a true proponent of liberty until you afford your neighbor more liberty than you afford your own self.  Patrick Henry knew this well.

    As to the necon view that America needs to Police the Planet because of all the good it's done, I profoundly disagree as a staunch liberty-embracing conservative.  It's time we compel our allies to tax their own people to pay for planet policing.  The American taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for keeping the planet under control.  Empires of the past would capture numerous countries and make them pay tribute in order to keep the peace.  Today, the American taxpayer alone keeps the peace and it isn't sustainable.  And on top of all that, America's interventionism has not always produced a good result.  In many cases, it hasn't worked at all.  Look at how long we were in Afghanistan and look at how much we spent, and now the we are pulling out (and we need to), look how fast the country is going back to the Taliban stronghold it was prior to our arrival there.  All we do is tax and spent  and go to war -- all for the GREATER GOOD.  Both Democrats and Republicans do this.  It's time that silliness ends.  And the very act of NOT being policeman of the world isn't about America becoming an isolated nation at all.  American can still very much be a global player without American taxpayers footing the bill to protect, police and bully all other countries.

    Apple is a private company and it can do what it wants in regards to scanning our photos on-device and alert authorities, but the key issue is whether the public will stand for it.  I currently do not because I will not be persuaded by the crazy "it's for the kids, it's for the greater good, it's because we're mature and responsible adults" arguments.  People always plead for the innocents and protection of the general populace in order to bring about every new law, regulation or corporate rule.  But all that new lawmaking does is take more of our liberty and privacy away in exchange for a statistically small and often insignificant benefit to a very small number of people.  Making the 99 face hardship to save the 1 sounds noble, but it isn't always practical or desirable, especially when that hardship is never ending.  And when one ponders that every rule and law and regulation imposes a tiny bit of hardship on society, the hardship really adds up in the end.  But here's the kicker... After all those fancy new protections are implemented, the world remains filled with evil, and it only gets worse each year.  That is partly why some states have given up and legalized certain drugs, since they simply cannot pack everybody in prison.  We have a MORAL PROBLEM today, not a problem stemming from not enough laws, rules or surveillance!

    It is a tragic crying shame, and a travesty beyond words, that innocents are exploited; BUT, the majority of kids are NOT being exploited.  My two kids certainly aren't, nor are their friends or the kids of people we know.  More kids face abuse in the home from their own parents than kids who are sexually exploited via pics posted online.  We don't need another set of overbearing laws, rules or on device scanning that open the door to huge problems for the majority only for the sake of preaching about a distinct minority of innocent people.  And that isn't to say we should do nothing.  Let's strive to help the innocents in a different way by changing our morals as a society. It's time to stop the loud voices preaching in self-righteous fervor to get companies and governments to act in concocting some great new plan to rid the world of evil while evil remains unabated as our freedoms grow fewer and fewer in number.

    Want that "alternative approach" now?  Do you really want to make the world a better place?  Be part Vulcan and keep your emotions, your desire to feel good, and your sexual impulses in check, and teach your kids to do the same.  That alone would reduce our drug problem tremendously, not to mention sexual abuse, exploitation, domestic abuse, etc.. Teach our young people to identify wrongs they see in every day life and to act against those wrongs as an individual, rather than force the majority to act against wrongs as a group by some new law or regulation.  Teach people that a soft answer turns away wrath.  Forgive and completely forget, 70x7.  Love others as you love your own self (e.g., help the less fortunate, homeless, etc.).  When wronged, turn the other cheek. Practice what you preach.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And the list of good we need to do doesn't end there.

    If the majority of people in American did those MORAL things, it would have a tremendously positive impact on society without the need to add yet another law, rule, regulation, or on-device surveillance routine.  The reason why our laws, regulations, rules and surveillance is so widespread is because society today refuses to act morally.  That is separate and distinct from merely being a "responsible and mature adult."  Endlessly adding new laws as a substitute for moral behavior will NOT turn the tide and make society better.  You cannot legislate morality nor surveil people into right behavior.

    In all our decisions, let us err on the side of liberty and privacy.  More people stand to benefit from the expansion of freedom than from restriction of freedom.  Being free from on-device snooping and scanning is a critically important aspect of freedom.



    That's pure ideological modern Libertarianism....  
    Unfortunately, we know it doesn't work.  Instead, rules are set to create a safe and stable society where people can thrive.  And government is there to create those rules -- usually in response to some violation of common good and decency.

    But some people seem to prefer anything-goes anarchy.   Which is pretty weird because those same people protest against "illegal aliens" seeking refuge in this country often from that same anything-goes anarchy.
    It is a tremendous misrepresentation of what I wrote to suggest I am in any way whatsoever in support of Anarchy or the utter absence of government.  Reduction, yes.  Elimination, no.  A reduction in certain types of on-device scanning, yes.  The complete turning of a blind all to all evils by companies like Apple, no.  It's a fine BALANCE of trying to keep a people free while at the same time trying to regulate them.

    The fact remains that the kind of government we know today exists to control a largely IMMORAL people, not a moral one.  That is not a self-righteous description of our society today either.  Just take a look around.  The sheer excess of rules, regulations, laws and AI spyware are proof of that.  The fact many cops fear for their lives and are easy to shoot people, as opposed to being a loving Andy Griffith, is also evidence of where our society is at.  

    If everyone was perfect, a large and overbearing government would largely be unneeded — only small government.  But sadly, the more immoral a people becomes, the more rules, regulations, laws, and spyware come to have.  

    Compounding this problem is what John Adams once said about the Constitution of the United States having been created for a largely moral people.  Indeed, he said, "Without virtue, there can be NO LIBERTY."  Because we have more and more immorality today, people are choosing the path of legislation rather than alternatives to keep that immoral people in check, and individual liberty and privacy is slowly etched away.  Again, it is not self-righteous to state an observation of fact.  I have already establishes we all, myself included, are unrighteous, especially because we have so many laws on the books that not even the most righteous person can obey them all perpetually.  The abundance of laws make us all into lawbreakers.

    I advocate MORALITY over ENDLESS RULES because that is the only path to true freedom (not anarchy, but well balanced individual liberty with minimal government).  As such, I cannot help but recommend ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LIBERTY, not on the side of more rules without end.  This does NOT advocate Anarchy at all.  To suggest it does is a complete misunderstanding of what I have written, and that is why I am taking time now to offer this rebuttal.  

    Anarchy among an immoral people results in chaos
    .  But for us to throw up our hands and say, "our society is too immoral for us to do anything about it, so let's just legislate our way to protecting the people instead of trying better to teach our children right from wrong" is a dead end road that doesn't lead to anything close to paradise. It merely makes us into a police state.  Address the moral issues first and foremost.  There's nothing "self-righteous" about advocating the teaching of morality either.  And when I say "morality" it goes without saying I also mean "integrity" too.  Integrity is doing right even when no one is looking.

    To further my rebuttal of the misrepresentation of my previous post, I must add this.  Anarchy is rooted in the false belief that human beings are largely good and will produce a utopian society if merely given greater individual liberty.  Anarchy wishes to dispense not only with the state but also religion as well, thinking neither is needed at all to make a moral people.  I disagree with that profoundly.  As such, it should be abundantly clear that I am no anarchist, although I may be more accurately accused of being a slightly libertarian-loving conservative.  But I am not a Libertarian either, nor have I ever voted for their candidates, although I will admit I used to like quite a bit about what Ron Paul used to preach.  But again, that doesn't categorize me under a single label as some of you seek to do.  We as human beings have too many diverse thoughts to be put under a single label.  Thinkers are more of a mix of different philosophies.

    And as to Crowley's thoughtless reply, I cannot say I am surprised as it is indicative of what he usually writes whenever he disagrees with someone, and there's hardly a day that goes by when he doesn't disagree with a large number of people in this forum.  My having called upon parents and society to teach morals to their beloved children (our future) isn't "self-righteous" because it is my responsibility as a parent too.  Saying what I said in my previous post is nothing more than advocating a better course of action than mere rule-making alone.  Legislative action needs to come last.  You cannot legislate morality, nor do crazy philosophies like anarchy make us a moral people.

    All said, I have legitimate concerns about Apple's currently plan to perform on-device scanning and paying human eyes to review flagged images so horrible that no human eyes should see them.  This is not a misunderstanding on my part about Apple's plan, nor am I overlooking how "unlikely" it is for innocent people to be flagged by a human reviewer and sent to law enforcement. It is a concern about this being a crack that could possibly be misused in unforeseen ways, and a concern for the human reviewers who will ultimately be forced to look at horrible photos day in and day out.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 78 of 90
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,496moderator
    jdw said:
    jdw said:
    dewme said:
    This is all part of being a compassionate adult. There are times when you have to put aside your selfish inclinations, personal comfort, and tribal boundaries to help other people who cannot help themselves. This is always the case with adults who are implicitly and morally responsible for safeguarding and protecting children. As a compassionate human being, if you’re in a position to help protect a child, you help. This is non-negotiable. 

    There are too many who have planted their flag and are willing to die on their own little hill of ideological purity. We, especially Americans and countries that have been saved by American intervention, are very fortunate that these little hills are few and far between. America could have stood firmly on their ideology of neutrality, isolationism, and nonintervention during both World War 1 and World War 2.

    Fortunately, if somewhat belatedly, America put pragmatism, compassion, and a sense of global unity out front and intervened. No doubt that some folks were appalled by the sacrifice of ideological purity and the terrible price that was paid once America decided to act. But action was needed and the cost and consequences were and still are viewed in the free world as having been an acceptable sacrifice for the benefits achieved. 

    If our children are the lifeline to the future of humanity, why are we even arguing about the need to act? We have new technological tools that can make a difference closer to the source. The “law & order” chest thumping which mostly treats the symptoms and post damage aftermath aren’t yielding sufficient results. 

    If someone has an issue with the techniques being used, please bring your alternative approaches forward - now. Doing nothing other than speculating about what-ifs and what-abouts is no longer morally acceptable. As adults we are responsible for protecting our children, all children in fact. There is no hidden agenda here, it’s simply Apple, like so many other companies, following through and acting compassionately and responsibly, with some additional prodding from the general public and our representatives. 
    The above is more of the same tired defense of "doing such-and-such for the GREATER GOOD."  "The sacrifices were worth it," so many say!  "We must do it to be mature and responsible adults," they say!  Are you aware we have so many laws on the books that no one can perfectly obey those endless rules perpetually?  The sheer abundance of laws has made all of us into law breakers.  It's horrifically sad.  Even if one ponders traffic laws alone, that is true.  A cop can nail you if he follows you around long enough.  This isn't a guess on my part.  Many a law officer has admitted that flat out.  Those so-called "responsible adults" are the reason why laws perpetually increase and surveillance becomes more intrusive and prevalent.  Despite all the new laws, rules and restrictions, the same "responsible adults" continue calling for even more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more spying, more control over the human condition.  But to what end result?  Paradise?  Not even close.

    Americans are so obsessed with doing good that legalism has become mainstream.  The harsh letter of the law prevails over the spirit of the law.   Everybody points the finger at somebody else.  Everyone is a wannabe lawyer.  People sue each other left and right.  Everyone wants to blame the other guy for breaking one our endless rules.  

    The biggest problem in America is not the lack of much needed rules, but having too many existing ones.  We need to elect people to nuke many of our existing laws, to better ensure America really is that so-called "land of the free."  Many abuses will come from expanded freedom in an immoral society, but any lover of freedom knows it is worth the risk.  It is that kind of individual liberty that many of America's finest have sacrificed their lives for.  You aren't a true proponent of liberty until you afford your neighbor more liberty than you afford your own self.  Patrick Henry knew this well.

    As to the necon view that America needs to Police the Planet because of all the good it's done, I profoundly disagree as a staunch liberty-embracing conservative.  It's time we compel our allies to tax their own people to pay for planet policing.  The American taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for keeping the planet under control.  Empires of the past would capture numerous countries and make them pay tribute in order to keep the peace.  Today, the American taxpayer alone keeps the peace and it isn't sustainable.  And on top of all that, America's interventionism has not always produced a good result.  In many cases, it hasn't worked at all.  Look at how long we were in Afghanistan and look at how much we spent, and now the we are pulling out (and we need to), look how fast the country is going back to the Taliban stronghold it was prior to our arrival there.  All we do is tax and spent  and go to war -- all for the GREATER GOOD.  Both Democrats and Republicans do this.  It's time that silliness ends.  And the very act of NOT being policeman of the world isn't about America becoming an isolated nation at all.  American can still very much be a global player without American taxpayers footing the bill to protect, police and bully all other countries.

    Apple is a private company and it can do what it wants in regards to scanning our photos on-device and alert authorities, but the key issue is whether the public will stand for it.  I currently do not because I will not be persuaded by the crazy "it's for the kids, it's for the greater good, it's because we're mature and responsible adults" arguments.  People always plead for the innocents and protection of the general populace in order to bring about every new law, regulation or corporate rule.  But all that new lawmaking does is take more of our liberty and privacy away in exchange for a statistically small and often insignificant benefit to a very small number of people.  Making the 99 face hardship to save the 1 sounds noble, but it isn't always practical or desirable, especially when that hardship is never ending.  And when one ponders that every rule and law and regulation imposes a tiny bit of hardship on society, the hardship really adds up in the end.  But here's the kicker... After all those fancy new protections are implemented, the world remains filled with evil, and it only gets worse each year.  That is partly why some states have given up and legalized certain drugs, since they simply cannot pack everybody in prison.  We have a MORAL PROBLEM today, not a problem stemming from not enough laws, rules or surveillance!

    It is a tragic crying shame, and a travesty beyond words, that innocents are exploited; BUT, the majority of kids are NOT being exploited.  My two kids certainly aren't, nor are their friends or the kids of people we know.  More kids face abuse in the home from their own parents than kids who are sexually exploited via pics posted online.  We don't need another set of overbearing laws, rules or on device scanning that open the door to huge problems for the majority only for the sake of preaching about a distinct minority of innocent people.  And that isn't to say we should do nothing.  Let's strive to help the innocents in a different way by changing our morals as a society. It's time to stop the loud voices preaching in self-righteous fervor to get companies and governments to act in concocting some great new plan to rid the world of evil while evil remains unabated as our freedoms grow fewer and fewer in number.

    Want that "alternative approach" now?  Do you really want to make the world a better place?  Be part Vulcan and keep your emotions, your desire to feel good, and your sexual impulses in check, and teach your kids to do the same.  That alone would reduce our drug problem tremendously, not to mention sexual abuse, exploitation, domestic abuse, etc.. Teach our young people to identify wrongs they see in every day life and to act against those wrongs as an individual, rather than force the majority to act against wrongs as a group by some new law or regulation.  Teach people that a soft answer turns away wrath.  Forgive and completely forget, 70x7.  Love others as you love your own self (e.g., help the less fortunate, homeless, etc.).  When wronged, turn the other cheek. Practice what you preach.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And the list of good we need to do doesn't end there.

    If the majority of people in American did those MORAL things, it would have a tremendously positive impact on society without the need to add yet another law, rule, regulation, or on-device surveillance routine.  The reason why our laws, regulations, rules and surveillance is so widespread is because society today refuses to act morally.  That is separate and distinct from merely being a "responsible and mature adult."  Endlessly adding new laws as a substitute for moral behavior will NOT turn the tide and make society better.  You cannot legislate morality nor surveil people into right behavior.

    In all our decisions, let us err on the side of liberty and privacy.  More people stand to benefit from the expansion of freedom than from restriction of freedom.  Being free from on-device snooping and scanning is a critically important aspect of freedom.



    That's pure ideological modern Libertarianism....  
    Unfortunately, we know it doesn't work.  Instead, rules are set to create a safe and stable society where people can thrive.  And government is there to create those rules -- usually in response to some violation of common good and decency.

    But some people seem to prefer anything-goes anarchy.   Which is pretty weird because those same people protest against "illegal aliens" seeking refuge in this country often from that same anything-goes anarchy.
    It is a tremendous misrepresentation of what I wrote to suggest I am in any way whatsoever in support of Anarchy or the utter absence of government.  Reduction, yes.  Elimination, no.  A reduction in certain types of on-device scanning, yes.  The complete turning of a blind all to all evils by companies like Apple, no.  It's a fine BALANCE of trying to keep a people free while at the same time trying to regulate them.

    The fact remains that the kind of government we know today exists to control a largely IMMORAL people, not a moral one.  That is not a self-righteous description of our society today either.  Just take a look around.  The sheer excess of rules, regulations, laws and AI spyware are proof of that.  The fact many cops fear for their lives and are easy to shoot people, as opposed to being a loving Andy Griffith, is also evidence of where our society is at.  

    If everyone was perfect, a large and overbearing government would largely be unneeded — only small government.  But sadly, the more immoral a people becomes, the more rules, regulations, laws, and spyware come to have.  

    Compounding this problem is what John Adams once said about the Constitution of the United States having been created for a largely moral people.  Indeed, he said, "Without virtue, there can be NO LIBERTY."  Because we have more and more immorality today, people are choosing the path of legislation rather than alternatives to keep that immoral people in check, and individual liberty and privacy is slowly etched away.  Again, it is not self-righteous to state an observation of fact.  I have already establishes we all, myself included, are unrighteous, especially because we have so many laws on the books that not even the most righteous person can obey them all perpetually.  The abundance of laws make us all into lawbreakers.

    I advocate MORALITY over ENDLESS RULES because that is the only path to true freedom (not anarchy, but well balanced individual liberty with minimal government).  As such, I cannot help but recommend ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LIBERTY, not on the side of more rules without end.  This does NOT advocate Anarchy at all.  To suggest it does is a complete misunderstanding of what I have written, and that is why I am taking time now to offer this rebuttal.  

    Anarchy among an immoral people results in chaos
    .  But for us to throw up our hands and say, "our society is too immoral for us to do anything about it, so let's just legislate our way to protecting the people instead of trying better to teach our children right from wrong" is a dead end road that doesn't lead to anything close to paradise. It merely makes us into a police state.  Address the moral issues first and foremost.  There's nothing "self-righteous" about advocating the teaching of morality either.  And when I say "morality" it goes without saying I also mean "integrity" too.  Integrity is doing right even when no one is looking.

    To further my rebuttal of the misrepresentation of my previous post, I must add this.  Anarchy is rooted in the false belief that human beings are largely good and will produce a utopian society if merely given greater individual liberty.  Anarchy wishes to dispense not only with the state but also religion as well, thinking neither is needed at all to make a moral people.  I disagree with that profoundly.  As such, it should be abundantly clear that I am no anarchist, although I may be more accurately accused of being a slightly libertarian-loving conservative.  But I am not a Libertarian either, nor have I ever voted for their candidates, although I will admit I used to like quite a bit about what Ron Paul used to preach.  But again, that doesn't categorize me under a single label as some of you seek to do.  We as human beings have too many diverse thoughts to be put under a single label.  Thinkers are more of a mix of different philosophies.

    And as to Crowley's thoughtless reply, I cannot say I am surprised as it is indicative of what he usually writes whenever he disagrees with someone, and there's hardly a day that goes by when he doesn't disagree with a large number of people in this forum.  My having called upon parents and society to teach morals to their beloved children (our future) isn't "self-righteous" because it is my responsibility as a parent too.  Saying what I said in my previous post is nothing more than advocating a better course of action than mere rule-making alone.  Legislative action needs to come last.  You cannot legislate morality, nor do crazy philosophies like anarchy make us a moral people.

    All said, I have legitimate concerns about Apple's currently plan to perform on-device scanning and paying human eyes to review flagged images so horrible that no human eyes should see them.  This is not a misunderstanding on my part about Apple's plan, nor am I overlooking how "unlikely" it is for innocent people to be flagged by a human reviewer and sent to law enforcement. It is a concern about this being a crack that could possibly be misused in unforeseen ways, and a concern for the human reviewers who will ultimately be forced to look at horrible photos day in and day out.
    But how do you feel about the issue on the table?  Apple has a legal obligation to prevent storing child porn on its servers.  How should it go about ensuring that it doesn’t?  

    1. Lobby to change or repeal the law so that everyone is free to store [possess] child porn images?

    2. take steps to ensure that none of its customers upload such images to its servers?

    I vote for 2.

    Given that, how should apple go about this?  Require that all images are uploaded unencrypted, then scan the photos on the server?  That would cause far more outrage among privacy advocates than the method Apple has implemented.  Which is, simply generate a hash against any image the user attempts to upload.  To almost any observer, this hash contains no more information about the content of the image than a checksum, and we send those around all the time.  But the hash can be used in one specific context; to determine if the image is one represented by a database of known child porn images.  What privacy are you giving up, compared to being required to upload all your images unencrypted or handing over your iCloud encryption keys to Apple?  Seems to me Apple has chosen the most privacy protecting method of accomplishing the required goal.  
    edited August 2021 PezafastasleepDetnator
  • Reply 79 of 90
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,581member
    Rayz2016 said:
    But things must be getting a bit sticky if they're rolling out Hair Force One.

    It's odd, because with this much of a backlash, Google and Microsoft would've thrown in the towel and sat round the campfire for a rethink,

    Apple keeps on insisting that the problem is the dissenters: we just don't understand. We understand just fine, Craig; we just disagree with you.

    Apple is determined to drive this through, no matter what; and you have to wonder why. I mean they already scan images on their servers, so why are they so determined to get spyware running on your phone?

    I think the reason is that, after a couple of false starts, Cupertino is ready to go all in on its next big product: advertising. But how do you do this while keeping up the 'privacy' mantra? How do you get into user tracking when you've spent the past three or four years crucifying all the other companies who make money doing it?

    Well, to start with, you release a client-side tracker, give it a noble purpose, and then try to convince people that their privacy is protected because it is not moving around a real image; just a hashed representation of the image.

    If you can get people to accept that, then it's a lot easier to get them to accept step 2; a client-side tracker that logs what you're doing on the phone, which developers and marketers can hook into and extract information. But here's the clever part: the info they extract is a machine-learned representation of you that gets a unique number so it can be tracked across applications. But it doesn't contain any real details; not your name, address, health records, nothing; because as long as they know that 884398443894398 exercises three times a week, goes to a lot of cookery classes and has a subscription to PornHub, that's all they really care about. Why do they need to know your real name? They can serve relevant ads to that person without knowing who they are. Only Apple knows that, and they will not allow that information out.  The APIs to access this pseudo-you might even incur a subscription charge.

    But to make this work, they would need the user base to be accept loggers running on their phones. And that's where we are now: Step 1. That's why the client-side tool cannot be dropped. Without it, the whole plan is screwed.

    Of course, this would work for apps, but once you get out onto the web then there's no API, so for that to work, Apple would need some kind of private relay that could substitute your details with your avatar when you make web requests.


    The message Apple is trying to get across is that your privacy is not compromised, because we're just dealing with a representation of your data, not the data itself. 


    This is a very interesting theory.  I guess time will tell to see if you're right.
  • Reply 80 of 90
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,054member
    jdw said:
    jdw said:
    dewme said:
    This is all part of being a compassionate adult. There are times when you have to put aside your selfish inclinations, personal comfort, and tribal boundaries to help other people who cannot help themselves. This is always the case with adults who are implicitly and morally responsible for safeguarding and protecting children. As a compassionate human being, if you’re in a position to help protect a child, you help. This is non-negotiable. 

    There are too many who have planted their flag and are willing to die on their own little hill of ideological purity. We, especially Americans and countries that have been saved by American intervention, are very fortunate that these little hills are few and far between. America could have stood firmly on their ideology of neutrality, isolationism, and nonintervention during both World War 1 and World War 2.

    Fortunately, if somewhat belatedly, America put pragmatism, compassion, and a sense of global unity out front and intervened. No doubt that some folks were appalled by the sacrifice of ideological purity and the terrible price that was paid once America decided to act. But action was needed and the cost and consequences were and still are viewed in the free world as having been an acceptable sacrifice for the benefits achieved. 

    If our children are the lifeline to the future of humanity, why are we even arguing about the need to act? We have new technological tools that can make a difference closer to the source. The “law & order” chest thumping which mostly treats the symptoms and post damage aftermath aren’t yielding sufficient results. 

    If someone has an issue with the techniques being used, please bring your alternative approaches forward - now. Doing nothing other than speculating about what-ifs and what-abouts is no longer morally acceptable. As adults we are responsible for protecting our children, all children in fact. There is no hidden agenda here, it’s simply Apple, like so many other companies, following through and acting compassionately and responsibly, with some additional prodding from the general public and our representatives. 
    The above is more of the same tired defense of "doing such-and-such for the GREATER GOOD."  "The sacrifices were worth it," so many say!  "We must do it to be mature and responsible adults," they say!  Are you aware we have so many laws on the books that no one can perfectly obey those endless rules perpetually?  The sheer abundance of laws has made all of us into law breakers.  It's horrifically sad.  Even if one ponders traffic laws alone, that is true.  A cop can nail you if he follows you around long enough.  This isn't a guess on my part.  Many a law officer has admitted that flat out.  Those so-called "responsible adults" are the reason why laws perpetually increase and surveillance becomes more intrusive and prevalent.  Despite all the new laws, rules and restrictions, the same "responsible adults" continue calling for even more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more spying, more control over the human condition.  But to what end result?  Paradise?  Not even close.

    Americans are so obsessed with doing good that legalism has become mainstream.  The harsh letter of the law prevails over the spirit of the law.   Everybody points the finger at somebody else.  Everyone is a wannabe lawyer.  People sue each other left and right.  Everyone wants to blame the other guy for breaking one our endless rules.  

    The biggest problem in America is not the lack of much needed rules, but having too many existing ones.  We need to elect people to nuke many of our existing laws, to better ensure America really is that so-called "land of the free."  Many abuses will come from expanded freedom in an immoral society, but any lover of freedom knows it is worth the risk.  It is that kind of individual liberty that many of America's finest have sacrificed their lives for.  You aren't a true proponent of liberty until you afford your neighbor more liberty than you afford your own self.  Patrick Henry knew this well.

    As to the necon view that America needs to Police the Planet because of all the good it's done, I profoundly disagree as a staunch liberty-embracing conservative.  It's time we compel our allies to tax their own people to pay for planet policing.  The American taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for keeping the planet under control.  Empires of the past would capture numerous countries and make them pay tribute in order to keep the peace.  Today, the American taxpayer alone keeps the peace and it isn't sustainable.  And on top of all that, America's interventionism has not always produced a good result.  In many cases, it hasn't worked at all.  Look at how long we were in Afghanistan and look at how much we spent, and now the we are pulling out (and we need to), look how fast the country is going back to the Taliban stronghold it was prior to our arrival there.  All we do is tax and spent  and go to war -- all for the GREATER GOOD.  Both Democrats and Republicans do this.  It's time that silliness ends.  And the very act of NOT being policeman of the world isn't about America becoming an isolated nation at all.  American can still very much be a global player without American taxpayers footing the bill to protect, police and bully all other countries.

    Apple is a private company and it can do what it wants in regards to scanning our photos on-device and alert authorities, but the key issue is whether the public will stand for it.  I currently do not because I will not be persuaded by the crazy "it's for the kids, it's for the greater good, it's because we're mature and responsible adults" arguments.  People always plead for the innocents and protection of the general populace in order to bring about every new law, regulation or corporate rule.  But all that new lawmaking does is take more of our liberty and privacy away in exchange for a statistically small and often insignificant benefit to a very small number of people.  Making the 99 face hardship to save the 1 sounds noble, but it isn't always practical or desirable, especially when that hardship is never ending.  And when one ponders that every rule and law and regulation imposes a tiny bit of hardship on society, the hardship really adds up in the end.  But here's the kicker... After all those fancy new protections are implemented, the world remains filled with evil, and it only gets worse each year.  That is partly why some states have given up and legalized certain drugs, since they simply cannot pack everybody in prison.  We have a MORAL PROBLEM today, not a problem stemming from not enough laws, rules or surveillance!

    It is a tragic crying shame, and a travesty beyond words, that innocents are exploited; BUT, the majority of kids are NOT being exploited.  My two kids certainly aren't, nor are their friends or the kids of people we know.  More kids face abuse in the home from their own parents than kids who are sexually exploited via pics posted online.  We don't need another set of overbearing laws, rules or on device scanning that open the door to huge problems for the majority only for the sake of preaching about a distinct minority of innocent people.  And that isn't to say we should do nothing.  Let's strive to help the innocents in a different way by changing our morals as a society. It's time to stop the loud voices preaching in self-righteous fervor to get companies and governments to act in concocting some great new plan to rid the world of evil while evil remains unabated as our freedoms grow fewer and fewer in number.

    Want that "alternative approach" now?  Do you really want to make the world a better place?  Be part Vulcan and keep your emotions, your desire to feel good, and your sexual impulses in check, and teach your kids to do the same.  That alone would reduce our drug problem tremendously, not to mention sexual abuse, exploitation, domestic abuse, etc.. Teach our young people to identify wrongs they see in every day life and to act against those wrongs as an individual, rather than force the majority to act against wrongs as a group by some new law or regulation.  Teach people that a soft answer turns away wrath.  Forgive and completely forget, 70x7.  Love others as you love your own self (e.g., help the less fortunate, homeless, etc.).  When wronged, turn the other cheek. Practice what you preach.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And the list of good we need to do doesn't end there.

    If the majority of people in American did those MORAL things, it would have a tremendously positive impact on society without the need to add yet another law, rule, regulation, or on-device surveillance routine.  The reason why our laws, regulations, rules and surveillance is so widespread is because society today refuses to act morally.  That is separate and distinct from merely being a "responsible and mature adult."  Endlessly adding new laws as a substitute for moral behavior will NOT turn the tide and make society better.  You cannot legislate morality nor surveil people into right behavior.

    In all our decisions, let us err on the side of liberty and privacy.  More people stand to benefit from the expansion of freedom than from restriction of freedom.  Being free from on-device snooping and scanning is a critically important aspect of freedom.



    That's pure ideological modern Libertarianism....  
    Unfortunately, we know it doesn't work.  Instead, rules are set to create a safe and stable society where people can thrive.  And government is there to create those rules -- usually in response to some violation of common good and decency.

    But some people seem to prefer anything-goes anarchy.   Which is pretty weird because those same people protest against "illegal aliens" seeking refuge in this country often from that same anything-goes anarchy.
    It is a tremendous misrepresentation of what I wrote to suggest I am in any way whatsoever in support of Anarchy or the utter absence of government.  Reduction, yes.  Elimination, no.  A reduction in certain types of on-device scanning, yes.  The complete turning of a blind all to all evils by companies like Apple, no.  It's a fine BALANCE of trying to keep a people free while at the same time trying to regulate them.

    The fact remains that the kind of government we know today exists to control a largely IMMORAL people, not a moral one.  That is not a self-righteous description of our society today either.  Just take a look around.  The sheer excess of rules, regulations, laws and AI spyware are proof of that.  The fact many cops fear for their lives and are easy to shoot people, as opposed to being a loving Andy Griffith, is also evidence of where our society is at.  

    If everyone was perfect, a large and overbearing government would largely be unneeded — only small government.  But sadly, the more immoral a people becomes, the more rules, regulations, laws, and spyware come to have.  

    Compounding this problem is what John Adams once said about the Constitution of the United States having been created for a largely moral people.  Indeed, he said, "Without virtue, there can be NO LIBERTY."  Because we have more and more immorality today, people are choosing the path of legislation rather than alternatives to keep that immoral people in check, and individual liberty and privacy is slowly etched away.  Again, it is not self-righteous to state an observation of fact.  I have already establishes we all, myself included, are unrighteous, especially because we have so many laws on the books that not even the most righteous person can obey them all perpetually.  The abundance of laws make us all into lawbreakers.

    I advocate MORALITY over ENDLESS RULES because that is the only path to true freedom (not anarchy, but well balanced individual liberty with minimal government).  As such, I cannot help but recommend ERRING ON THE SIDE OF LIBERTY, not on the side of more rules without end.  This does NOT advocate Anarchy at all.  To suggest it does is a complete misunderstanding of what I have written, and that is why I am taking time now to offer this rebuttal.  

    Anarchy among an immoral people results in chaos
    .  But for us to throw up our hands and say, "our society is too immoral for us to do anything about it, so let's just legislate our way to protecting the people instead of trying better to teach our children right from wrong" is a dead end road that doesn't lead to anything close to paradise. It merely makes us into a police state.  Address the moral issues first and foremost.  There's nothing "self-righteous" about advocating the teaching of morality either.  And when I say "morality" it goes without saying I also mean "integrity" too.  Integrity is doing right even when no one is looking.

    To further my rebuttal of the misrepresentation of my previous post, I must add this.  Anarchy is rooted in the false belief that human beings are largely good and will produce a utopian society if merely given greater individual liberty.  Anarchy wishes to dispense not only with the state but also religion as well, thinking neither is needed at all to make a moral people.  I disagree with that profoundly.  As such, it should be abundantly clear that I am no anarchist, although I may be more accurately accused of being a slightly libertarian-loving conservative.  But I am not a Libertarian either, nor have I ever voted for their candidates, although I will admit I used to like quite a bit about what Ron Paul used to preach.  But again, that doesn't categorize me under a single label as some of you seek to do.  We as human beings have too many diverse thoughts to be put under a single label.  Thinkers are more of a mix of different philosophies.

    And as to Crowley's thoughtless reply, I cannot say I am surprised as it is indicative of what he usually writes whenever he disagrees with someone, and there's hardly a day that goes by when he doesn't disagree with a large number of people in this forum.  My having called upon parents and society to teach morals to their beloved children (our future) isn't "self-righteous" because it is my responsibility as a parent too.  Saying what I said in my previous post is nothing more than advocating a better course of action than mere rule-making alone.  Legislative action needs to come last.  You cannot legislate morality, nor do crazy philosophies like anarchy make us a moral people.

    All said, I have legitimate concerns about Apple's currently plan to perform on-device scanning and paying human eyes to review flagged images so horrible that no human eyes should see them.  This is not a misunderstanding on my part about Apple's plan, nor am I overlooking how "unlikely" it is for innocent people to be flagged by a human reviewer and sent to law enforcement. It is a concern about this being a crack that could possibly be misused in unforeseen ways, and a concern for the human reviewers who will ultimately be forced to look at horrible photos day in and day out.
    But how do you feel about the issue on the table?  Apple has a legal obligation to prevent storing child porn on its servers.  How should it go about ensuring that it doesn’t?  

    1. Lobby to change or repeal the law so that everyone is free to store [possess] child porn images?

    2. take steps to ensure that none of its customers upload such images to its servers?

    I vote for 2.

    Given that, how should apple go about this?  Require that all images are uploaded unencrypted, then scan the photos on the server?  That would cause far more outrage among privacy advocates than the method Apple has implemented.  Which is, simply generate a hash against any image the user attempts to upload.  To almost any observer, this hash contains no more information about the content of the image than a checksum, and we send those around all the time.  But the hash can be used in one specific context; to determine if the image is one represented by a database of known child porn images.  What privacy are you giving up, compared to being required to upload all your images unencrypted or handing over your iCloud encryption keys to Apple?  Seems to me Apple has chosen the most privacy protecting method of accomplishing the required goal.  
    Thank you for asking.  

    My advice would be for Apple to delay it's rollout, so as to better explain to the public how the public is not going to wind up being a target like the bad guys are.  Throwing out big numbers to describe "rarity" only impresses the left brained Vulcans among us, not the McCoys.  More specifically, instead of doing the roll-out as planned in iOS 15, delay it to iOS 16, so as to have more time to reason with the general public (most of whom use Apple products and iCloud), such that there is more support of Apple's plan, rather than just keep on the same plan knowing full well there is a lot of convener about the current plan among Apple users out there.

    Delaying the play until iOS 16 is what I vote for right now.  

    Delaying the plan means: (a) it won't be delayed forever, but (b) it will give Apple more time to get its PR machine properly oiled such that the ultimate message Apple sends puts far more minds at ease than Mr. Federighi did.  Think about that.  Federighi is wildly popular as far as Apple execs go, but even he couldn't quite turn the tide of suspicion among the public.  That dictates we need another approach.

    Simply delaying the current plan until iOS 16 won't mean it will ultimately be a unanimous vote in favor for Apple's plan, but having more time to explain matters in detail to get more public support is critically important.  That includes Apple product users who don't read AppleInsider or discuss such matters in this forum.   (For example, Apple should describe how it will monetarily compensate those supposedly "extremely rare" people who are misidentified by the system and nabbed by law enforcement, rather then ignore that matter and just wait until someone files a lawsuit. Have Apple explain how there will be no mental toll on human reviewers who are forced to confirm if the AI misidentified a batch of images.  Consider holding a Town Hall for fully vaccinated people to share their concerns face to face rather than online -- yes, it makes a difference.  And so on.)

    Let's slow down a bit and think how best to get more people on board with the plan (or a variant of it) to satisfy more people.  I know that doesn't fully satisfy your question which no doubt seeks a lot of highly detailed specifics, but a delay in the roll-out is what I am advocating right now.  It's not wrong to ask for a delay even if you don't have "the perfect substitute plan" all ready to go.
Sign In or Register to comment.