Hacker News Reader

Comment by voidnullnil | Hacker News Reader

When I was 13 and my parent made me use a content filter on the web I bypassed it and watched porn and they never found out.

On the other hand: Why would I ever want a piece of tech that reports me to the police (even if for legitimate reasons).

EDIT:

>Anonymous helplines and guidance exist for adults with at-risk thoughts and behaviour [https://www.apple.com/v/child-safety/a/images/guidance-img__...]

LOL NVM I TRIED BEING POLITE BUT NUKE SAN FRANCISCO AT THIS POINT TO BE HONEST

this horseshit is why i quit the software industry 10 years ago.

this is the cancer you are creating

View on HN

Then apple will lose market share and correct their ways.

Conversely, what I've seen does put this top of list as a parent. Will notify me if my child is sending nudes. Will notify me if someone is sending porn to my child. Will notify police if known child porn is on the device.

When folks talk about competition - part of this MUST include the USERS preferences (not as currently done the focus of what I see as largely predatory billers and businesses who I don't care about as a user).

I don't want child porn on my systems. Be very happy if apple helps keep it off them.

Are these hash databases available more broadly for scanning (ie, could I scan all work machines / storage using a tool of some sort)?

I don't think they will ever be able to walk this back. The governments that twisted Apple's arm to get this look-see into everyone's devices will roast them in the court of public opinion (or threaten to, which will be enough). IMO, this will just open up more and more - it will never go back to being what iDevice owners have now.

> The governments that twisted Apple's arm to get this look-see into everyone's devices will roast them in the court of public opinion

Nothing about this technology gives governments a ‘look see’ into everyone’s devices.

The government controls the hash list.

No. A registered charity called The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children controls the hash list.

Yes, they are partly government funded, but I highly doubt they'd let their mission be compromised by allowing the government to inject non-CP hashes. Doing so would compromise all the work they've performed over the last four decades.

These people are (rightfully) very passionate about their work and can't be easily paid off.

There are many, many valid concerns about this Apple initiative. But, "The government" injecting non CP images into the CP databases is not one of them.

> by allowing the government to inject non-CP hashes

I don't think "allowing" is the concern here, because I highly doubt they get to generate the hashes themselves.

I think you misunderstand the Center’s role in this. They review and categorize the images. They maintain the database and provide access to different organizations for the purpose of catching CP. Why wouldn’t they also generate the hashes?

Since they are the only ones legally allowed to possess the images, one can surmise that they must be the ones to create the hashes.

Why not? How can we know this isn’t the case? What technical or practical prevention would there be?

The hash data is secret because if widely known then offenders would know which images were known to law enforcement, and therefore transform or delete only those.

Would this service notify parents if such a thing happened ? I haven’t see it in their official announcement.

Isn't that most of the internet? I would be surprised if, for example, you didn't get reported by Hackernews if you started making criminal threats or sharing CSAM on here. From the legal tab:

>3. SHARING AND DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

>In certain circumstances we may share your Personal Information with third parties without further notice to you, unless required by the law, as set forth below:

...

>Legal Requirements: If required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to (i) comply with a legal obligation, including to meet national security or law enforcement requirements, (ii) protect and defend our rights or property, (iii) prevent fraud, (iv) act in urgent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of the Services, or the public, or (v) protect against legal liability.

>Isn't that most of the internet?

No, bad analogy.

Insightful reply, thanks.

Well, it was succint and other people got it.

Some website reporting you to the police for doing something illegal is not the same as your hardware/software being stuffed with snakeoil spyware that slows down the UI all for some made up cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com