tylersdad

loopless said:

Only people who have never developed an app for sale want this to happen. Apple takes care of everything for you, money just appears in your bank account. It's worth every penny.

rob53 said:

22july2013 said:

Exciting times. I've been arguing for this for years and that's why so many people hate me on this forum.

So you believe a developer has every right in the world to post their apps for free on the Apple App Store? Give me one legitimate reason why Apple should be required to host these apps for free. Apple doesn't charge for free apps but could start doing that if they wanted to. Apple could also start charging developers to even put their apps on the Apple App Store and if these stupid laws pass, I'm all for Apple doing that. There's no way anyone could force Apple to host things on their servers for free. It would be like me hosting your email server on my hardware, which I maintain, for free. Get a grip, I'd never do that and I doubt any company would do that. This shows how stupid these laws are.

Of course, if you want to have your own payment system, then be prepared for Apple to start charging you a hosting fee for every download and install of that app. That's only fair isn't it?

loopless said:

...snip...

Using the guise of child-porn as a trojan horse ( anyone who objects is tarred and feathered as being in favor of child-abuse) we are having our privacy invaded in the most evil way. 

Mike Wuerthele said:

tylersdad said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tylersdad said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tylersdad said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tylersdad said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

tylersdad said:

It starts with examining personal pictures ostensibly to prevent child exploitation, but where does it lead? Where does it end?

Apple isn't examining personal pictures. No one is examining anything. Your photo has a unique number based on how the pixels are laid out, that number is compared to a database of numbers representing images for an exact match. False positives are one in a trillion. This is overly-simplified, but that's the basic overview. There isn't some algorithm looking for nudity in images.

Where does it end? It already has ended. The tool exists, it took years to develop, it is rolling out this fall. There is no "next."

Um, how do they look at the pixels if they don't examine the image? Do you have any idea how this technology even works? It doesn't appear so. To look at the pixels compare them to pixels in reference images, they must open both images. If they are opening the image and reading the pixels, then they are examining personal pictures. Are you trying to be obtuse purposely? 

Your answer to "where it ends" is beyond ridiculous. There is always a next. There are always enhancements. It's the nature of technology. 

Wes is not the one that misunderstands. There is no pixel to pixel comparison.

The iCloud pictures are mathematically hashed. They are then compared to a hash database, provided to Apple, by the NCMEC. Apple does not have the source pictures, it has the database hash.

How exactly do you mathematically hash an image--or any file for that matter--without looking at the 1's and 0's in the file?

Because you're doing it one 0 and one 1 at a time. A single pixel is many 0s and many 1s, depending on the bit depth, and compression algo. There is no contextual evaluation or assessment of the file, or even a single pixel, beyond the generation of the hash.

There's no assessment of the image as a whole. You could feed a Word file into the hasher, and it would still generate a hash.

Which means they have to open the file, read the contents, generate the hash, transmit the hash. 

They are opening the file. They have to. Sure, it's happening on your phone, but it's still happening. It may not be a human looking at your file, but it's being opened by Apple code that generates the hash. 

You cannot generate a hash without some sort of input. In this case, the input is the 1's and 0's from the file...which they MUST read to generate the hash. 

Read the whole comment that I wrote. Reading the stream of 0s and 1s gives no clue to anyone as to what's in the file.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. Seeing the 0 and 1 in a file without knowing how to decode it isn't the same as knowing what the file is.

Read my whole quote. My concern is not that someone at Apple is looking at the visual representation of a file on my phone. My concern is that they are opening a file without my permission and examining the contents: even if it's just the 1's and 0's. 

Today they're only looking at 1's and 0's. Tomorrow? Who knows...

The bottom line is that the code MUST open the file. The code MUST read the contents of the file. 

I guess all I can say here is Apple knowing that a file has 0s and 1s in it is not the same as knowing those 0s and 1s are a picture of a palm tree, and then a picture of a dog, and then a living room shoot.