Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CharlesW 554 days ago
> …so they made a business decision to respect peoples privacy (and their bottom line at that).

For the record, Apple abandoned this on-device technique because of bad press, even though it would've been more privacy-preserving than the in-cloud scanning that virtually all image hosts do today.
2 comments
rangestransform 554 days ago
How about the device I own never do anything, ever to incriminate me

In fact, if I own a device, it should by default do everything legal to obstruct law enforcement efforts against me because I own it and it should serve me

link
JoshTriplett 554 days ago
> even though it would've been more privacy-preserving than the in-cloud scanning that virtually all image hosts do today

You can opt out of in-cloud scanning by not using the cloud, or selecting a different service.

link
CharlesW 554 days ago
That would have still been true, since photos not destined for iCloud Photos were not scanned.
link
JoshTriplett 554 days ago
There is no fundamental property of the technology that ensures that. Once the capability exists, how long do you think that'd stay true?
link
CharlesW 554 days ago
It exists now, since the tech was repurposed for Apple’s Communication Safety (scanning for all nudity, not just CSAM): https://www.apple.com/child-safety/

How do you validate that your OS, your apps, and other actors in your image/video processing and storage supply chains aren't doing surreptitious CSAM scanning? I have no idea. All I know is that Apple is being sued for not doing it.

link
palata 553 days ago
> All I know is that Apple is being sued for not doing it.

Which doesn't make sense.

> How do you validate that your OS, your apps, and other actors in your image/video processing and storage supply chains aren't doing [...]

Because you don't know that your neighbour deals drugs does not make it legal.

link