dysamoria

nizzard said:

I’m ok with this.   What is NOT ok is them backdooring Messages (to start).

sflocal said:

baconstang said:

Looks like they caught this

crowley said:

macplusplus said:

… (more)

crowley said:

macplusplus said:

StrangeDays said:

…

Then I assume you don’t use Dropbox, Gmail, Twitter, Tumblr, etc etc… They all use the CSAM database for the same purpose. 

The main take-away - commercial cloud hosting uses their servers. Should they not take measures to address child pornography on them? Not using their commercial service, there’s no issue. Is that not reasonable? One needn’t use commercial hosting services, especially if using it for illegal purposes.

And this is exactly what criminals actually do: they are not stupid enough to use iCloud, they have the dark web, they have browsers and file transfer tools tailored to the special protocols developed for the dark web. Apple has long explained very well that iCloud backups are not encrypted. Law enforcement has (or should have) no issue with iCloud, because they can get any person’s unencrypted iCloud data anytime by presenting a court order. And I assure you, this is almost always much faster than Apple’s surveillance, based on the accumulation of some nasty tokens and the following human review.

So, that child protection pretext stinks. Since law enforcement can access iCloud data anytime, Apple’s  attempt to adopt self-declared law enforcement role to “prevent crimes before they occur” is Orwellian !

I'mma just leave this here:

U.S. law requires tech companies to flag cases of child sexual abuse to the authorities. Apple has historically flagged fewer cases than other companies. Last year, for instance, Apple reported 265 cases to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, while Facebook reported 20.3 million, according to the center’s statistics. That enormous gap is due in part to Apple’s decision not to scan for such material, citing the privacy of its users.

From: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-privacy.html

(less)

Flagging such cases doesn't mean preventive Orwellian surveillance. Such a law cannot pass. Even if it did, it cannot be interpreted in such an Orwellian sense. Citizens will fight, courts will interpret.

No idea what you're even talking about.  

You said criminals are "not stupid enough to use iCloud", which is obviously untrue, since they're stupid enough to use Facebook.

You said Apple are attempting to "prevent crimes before they occur", which doesn't seem to be true or even relevant.  Images of child abuse are definitely crimes that have already occurred.

Stop using Orwellian like a trump word.  It isn't.

lkrupp said:

Okay, here we go with the misinformation train. I’m watching the 5 o’clock local news in St. Louis. Next story up, after the commercials, “Apple will start