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

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 90
    elijahg said:

    Criticisms of the features centered on the perception that Apple was analyzing photos on users' iPhones. "That's a common but really profound misunderstanding," said Federighi.

    "This is only being applied as part of a process of storing something in the cloud," he continued. "This isn't some processing running over the images you store in Messages, or Telegram... or what you're browsing over the web. This literally is part of the pipeline for storing images in iCloud."
    So they’re actually not analysing photos on-device as they’re uploaded to iCloud? Meaning the content of the white paper Apple published the other day is actually wrong? Or does he seem to think people will be convinced all’s fine by claiming that photos are not scanned, only “analysed” as part of the upload process? That code could easily be expanded out into a daemon that scans all data on the phone at any time. That’s the issue. Nothing to do with messaging (though that wasn’t great either).
    He’s very clearly referring the misunderstanding that Apple is analyzing all photos all the time, like in Messages or Telegram. It isn’t. It’s analyzing the photo prior to uploading it to their commercial iCloud servers, so they don’t have to host child porn. 

    These are numeric hash comparisons to the hash signatures of known child porn. The hash is not the photo, it’s a numeric representation of the photo — in the same way that your iPhone doesn’t store your FaceID or TouchID images, but instead stores a numeric hash which is used for authentication. 

    Man how do you not get this yet.
    That technical process doesn’t take away the valid criticism. Hash or entire photo, local or remote; your content is analyzed by a tech giant. 

    Apple is not law enforcement or a government agency.  They can't say no forever.  They've already said yes to exemptions for China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia just to keep selling the phones in those countries. This CSAM process can and will be abused by foreign governments.
    xyzzy-xxx
  • Reply 82 of 90
    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.  
    You seem to like fish 😀

    Apple are hypocrites. Their marketing is all about security, but in several instances they have proven to let go of their mantra for money. 

    Think China, Russia or Saudi Arabia; they provide local iCloud instances and they also don’t end-to-end encrypt. 
    People’s “dire future predictions” as you put it, are valid concerns.

    Heck, they don’t even care about my security in the USA! https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-scraps-end-to-end-encryption-of-icloud-backups/


    If Apple would truly be about security, they would have raised their middle finger and simply ignored these above markets.
    Or, if they weren’t about security, they could have straight up admit it instead of hiding it in their hundreds of ToS and Privacy Policy pages and legal wording.

    That to me makes them a bunch of hypocrites. Security is about ALL or NOTHING.
  • Reply 83 of 90
    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.  
    Require that all images are uploaded unencrypted, then scan the photos on the server? - This is the part that you keep getting it wrong on multiple posts. Apple does NOT need to keep the images unencrypted in iCloud for them to be able to scan the images for CSAM content. They can keep them encrypted but hold the key for decrypting the image when needed. And they are already doing it (holding the encryption keys), as mentioned by GatorGuy in other threads. GatorGuy also shared the link Apple may have ditched encrypted backups, but Google hasn't | Android Central for backing up this claim. There is absolutely NO need for Apple to move the scanning to end user's devices. They can do the scanning in iCloud with the keys that they have. Most of the people wouldn't object to that, for which Apple ALREADY has the capability. Makes you wonder why they NEED to bring this new feature in the first place.
    xyzzy-xxx
  • Reply 84 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.  
    You seem to like fish 😀

    Apple are hypocrites. Their marketing is all about security, but in several instances they have proven to let go of their mantra for money. 

    Think China, Russia or Saudi Arabia; they provide local iCloud instances and they also don’t end-to-end encrypt. 
    People’s “dire future predictions” as you put it, are valid concerns.

    Heck, they don’t even care about my security in the USA! https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-scraps-end-to-end-encryption-of-icloud-backups/


    If Apple would truly be about security, they would have raised their middle finger and simply ignored these above markets.
    Or, if they weren’t about security, they could have straight up admit it instead of hiding it in their hundreds of ToS and Privacy Policy pages and legal wording.

    That to me makes them a bunch of hypocrites. Security is about ALL or NOTHING.
    Security is not all or nothing.  Who told you that?  There’s always multiple levels of security.  

    And there’s nothing inherently wrong with a country wanting its citizen’s cloud data hosted locally.  You seem to be conflating that requirement with that fact some countries do spy on their citizens.  But that doesn’t make Apple the spy, or complicit in the act.  
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 85 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.  
    Require that all images are uploaded unencrypted, then scan the photos on the server? - This is the part that you keep getting it wrong on multiple posts. Apple does NOT need to keep the images unencrypted in iCloud for them to be able to scan the images for CSAM content. They can keep them encrypted but hold the key for decrypting the image when needed. And they are already doing it (holding the encryption keys), as mentioned by GatorGuy in other threads. GatorGuy also shared the link Apple may have ditched encrypted backups, but Google hasn't | Android Central for backing up this claim. There is absolutely NO need for Apple to move the scanning to end user's devices. They can do the scanning in iCloud with the keys that they have. Most of the people wouldn't object to that, for which Apple ALREADY has the capability. Makes you wonder why they NEED to bring this new feature in the first place.
    How did I get it wrong?  I clearly stated “… or handing over your iCloud encryption keys to Apple”

    So you whole comment here fails on the fact you didn’t read what I wrote.  Why are people getting all bend out of shape that the hash is generated on the iPhone?  Only for images that are being sent to the sever.  This prevents the image being stored on the server, as it can be caught before it’s uploaded.  And that protects Apple from illegally storing child porn images on its servers.  
    GeorgeBMacDetnator
  • Reply 86 of 90
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    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.

    You've obviously thought that through -- it is logical rather than the ideological nonsense we hear so much these days.
    But two things:
    1)  It sounds very much a like religious state -- which is almost always more restrictive.  That is:  the morality you speak of almost always derives from a religion (whether it is protestanism or Islamic) and it gets codified and becomes very rigid.   A great example of that is playing on Apple TV now:  Schmigadoon where a modern couple gets thrown back into a 1950's era musical -- where everybody subconsciously adheres to that all encompassing morality without even realizing it because it is the norm.  (In Schigagadoon you can end up the star of a shot gun wedding because you kissed a girl -- and, of course, the girl gets pregnant from a kiss!   Or, in actual 1950's TV, Rob and Laura Petry slept in separate, twin beds)

    A non-religious example is Communist China where the state engages in social engineering and people aren't just obeying laws but living in a particular kind of social order not terribly unlike that of 1950's America -- where, if you were expected to wear a mask you wore an f-n mask.

    Or, a religious based example is playing out right now in Afhanistan:   We offered those people "liberty" but within weeks of us leaving they returned to the rigorous morality of Islam.  And, while we say and believe that "Nobody would want to live under that repression", obviously many do -- probably most Afghanistanis.

    2)  Well never mind...   let's leave it go at just one thing.

    It's probably why I am a moderate:   It's not so much that one is good and the other bad but:  "Too much of a good thing is a bad thing".
  • Reply 87 of 90
    German press union tries to stop Apple and think it's illegal in the EU (even if the rollout is not planned for the EU yet, the existence of backdoor alone seems t be illegal):

    https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-djv/pressebereich-download/pressemitteilungen/detail/news-ueberwachung-contra-pressefreiheit
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 88 of 90
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,102member
    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.
    Narrator: "He's not."
  • Reply 89 of 90
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,102member
    jdw said:
    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.
    "I don't understand how this feature works, so I want Apple to wait a year before releasing it." is how this reads to me.
    crowley
Sign In or Register to comment.