Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jstx1 1777 days ago
Maybe wait to see how it's implemented and how it works first?

I really think that the HN crowd is having a giant knee-jerk reaction to all of this.

4 comments

It isn't exactly a knee jerk; it has been quite likely that this sort of thing would happen sooner or later.

This is just a great point for if anyone is going to do anything. Apple is going to start scanning my phone looking for reasons to put me in jail. I don't want my phone's CPU time spent looking for reasons to imprison me and I don't want to be funding it either. This system will make mistakes.

Exactly. Despite countless occurrences of automated systems getting things wrong--there is no such thing as AI, remember, just fallible developers and their fallible formulae--somehow the naive continue to trust in these systems. It's insane, and those of us who do know how insane it is are left to pay the price for the naivete.
Its harder to take back policies like this than it is to object and get them stopped initially.

Also people have a habit of 'forgetting' about it later. Until stories of how it is misused are found. And then it's another attack vector we need to be conscious of.

And that’s how France still has VAT & revenue taxes.

Revenue tax? Have to pay for that expensive WWI war effort, you understand? For all the good it did.

Same with the VAT. Have to rebuild after WWII, you understand.

We also have an "Exceptional and Temporary Contribution" (CET), recently renamed to "Technical Equilibrium Contribution" (still CET. Smart one, that one).

A funny one, for a change?

When the Germans invaded in WWII, they changed France's timezone to theirs. After the war, we still called it "the German time". There were talks of going back for a few years…

Guess who still has noon at 2pm in the summer, decades later?

Change, no matter how ridiculously small or sensical, even when nobody benefits from the status quo (ie the damn timezone) is horrendously difficult.

Thus one should always assume that once it’s here, whatever "it" is, it’s here to stay.

There is still one constant: how the state system cares for victims of child abuse is still the same as in WW2.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820...

You would think money would go into the "backend": caring for kids where the state is responsible for everything BEFORE more money goes into the frontend: finding more kids to throw into the hellhole that is child services.

Without the "backend" being in order and working well, raising well-educated, stable kids, the frontend is completely immoral. "Saving" kids from abuse, only to throw them into a slightly different kind of abuse ... if any person did that (e.g. a guy marrying a woman (or I guess vice-versa) with that resulting in that person abusing their new spouse's kids) would be considered a despicable crime. Somehow child services, who do the exact same thing (and they use violence to do it) is not a despicable crime.

Somehow just because the state does it, makes such things all a-okay.

But frankly this is merely the hole in the justification, all this should merely tell you one thing: any government that doesn't work hard to fix the child services backend does not have children's interests at heart when making these sorts of laws (and mostly they're making budget cuts in the backend, of course). Because fundamentally these laws throw children into the child services system. THAT is the real effect these efforts have on the actual children behind this. THAT is what is meant by "saving kids".

And if that system is full of abuse, how is that any better than what paedophiles do? It's not.

Which means the state is not attempting to help abused or disadvantaged children. In fact, they're doing the opposite.

> We also have an "Exceptional and Temporary Contribution" (CET), recently renamed to "Technical Equilibrium Contribution" (still CET. Smart one, that one).

This is amazing

Oh, there’s a lot more where that came from.

Just an example. During a heatwave some summer over a decade ago, many elderly people died.

So what did the government do? They instituted a "day of solidarity", of course!

What does it mean? If you are salaried, then you get to work an extra day, during a holiday of your company’s choosing, and not be paid. The day’s salary will go to a public fund dedicated to helping promote the autonomy of elderly people. And your employer gets an extra day of employees supposedly producing value out of it.

Many people instead take the day, either on their paid leave or their Work Time Reduction days (RTT).

That’s on top of all the other social "contributions" (sounds better than taxes), of course.

Payslips used to be quite funny to decipher[1][2]. They’ve simplified those a bit since then; mostly by regrouping items[3].

[1]: http://cdn-s-www.ledauphine.com/images/F9FED7FA-778E-40CA-8F...

[2]: https://cap.img.pmdstatic.net/scale/http.3A.2F.2Fprd2-bone-i...

[3]: http://s-www.ledauphine.com/images/39A7BC0B-D6E2-456D-800D-5...

Devices betraying their owner to serve a remote master in ways the owner does not consent to is abhorrent, regardless of the purpose of such spying.
Presumably you consent by turning on iCloud Photo Library.
This will happen with or without iCloud; the photos in iCloud are already not end to end encrypted and could easily be scanned on the server side because Apple can read all of them today.

The only reason to do this clientside when the data is already readable on the server is to do it to images that aren't hitting the cloud.

> This will happen with or without iCloud;

You don't know that.

> The only reason to do this clientside when the data is already readable on the server is to do it to images that aren't hitting the cloud.

Or to eventually e2e encrypt all of iCloud. Or because Apple doesn't want to decrypt images server-side if they don't have to. Etc.

But the point is that currently, only photos that will be uploaded to iCloud Photo Library will be scanned. Making definitive points about possible future scenarios isn't particularly insightful, especially because the current system isn't much of a precondition of those scenarios.

None of this is happening "currently"; both of these claims are speculation about future changes based on Apple's statements.

Apple has made 3 announcements and released one research paper and held a press conference. Now we have to reconstruct what is likely going to be the truth from their carefully crafted statements.

With currently I obviously meant the system that's going to be deployed in the next major update.

The rest of my points still stand.

> Devices betraying their owner to serve a remote master

This is the type of dramatic over-the-top reaction that I'm talking about.

It's an accurate and objective description of the situation; there is no opinion involved. If you think facts are over the top, perhaps the situation is actually outrageous.
I this is sarcasm?
No, I am sincere.
Yes I’m fully aware of all the flaws in the technical, ethical and political arenas.