Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zepto 1771 days ago
Right, but neither is the CSAM code being used to detect anything but CSAM.

If a bit can be flipped to make the CSAM detector go evil, surely it can be flipped to make photo search go evil, or spotlight start reporting files that match keywords for that matter.

There is nothing special about this CSAM detector except that it’s narrower and harder to repurpose than most of the rest of the system.
1 comments
pritambaral 1771 days ago
> ... to make photo search go evil, or spotlight start reporting files that match keywords for that matter.

As your immediate parent has already said: there isn't any process by which an image of a hotdog will be sent to someone else without my knowledge.

Neither "photo search" nor "spotlight" report anything to third parties currently.

link
zepto 1771 days ago
No, but a ‘bit flip’ could make them do so just as easily as a ‘bit flip’ could make the CSAM detector do something nefarious.
link
pritambaral 1770 days ago
How are you still not getting this?: "search" and "spotlight" do not have the code to report anything to anyone.
link
zepto 1770 days ago
How are you still not getting it? The code to ‘report’ something is barely more than a one liner http request. It could be added at any time.

On the other hand, making the CSAM code scan your text documents would be pointlessly difficult given that the other mechanisms exist.

link
pritambaral 1770 days ago
> It could be added at any time.

It has already been added. That's the point here. The phone already has the code to report its own owner. People are rightfully pissed about that.

Also, adding a one-liner of code is a lot more than a bit-flip. That's the addition of a feature, which is a major business decision. Code that already exists is a lot closer to "misfiring" than code that simply does not. Flipping a policy config, OTOH, could be "explained" away a lot easier. In fact, Big Tech does it all the time! (Remember Facebook's "Oh. Sorry. It was a bug."?)

----

Please stop this poor attempt at moving the goalposts by saying, "But, similar code could be added at any time in the future! Why're you guys complaining now?!"

It's also not about where the scanning is happening, or whether that's new or old. The old scanning is not a problem, precisely because it does no reporting. The new scanning IS a problem, precisely because it does the reporting.

The former is not a problem on its own. The latter is. That's the point you keep missing.

link