info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Does the End Justify the Means?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Lewis
Aug 10, 2021, 2:05:05 PM8/10/21
to
In message <0001HW.DD37E38C...@news.astraweb.com> Ed Norton <nor...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 21:37:07 -0400, nospam wrote
> (in article <090820212137072281%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
>> In article <0001HW.DD372459...@news.astraweb.com>, Ed
>> Norton <nor...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So I have been reading with interest all the threads about Apple's plan
>>>>> to scan images for "Child Pornography". (I ignore the fact that the
>>>>> definitions of "child" and "pornography" are not even universally
>>>>> agreed upon.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't sound like you've actually read how Apple are implementing this.
>>>> It's all right out in the open, on Apple's site with whitepapers and
>>>> reviews and comments from appropriate researchers.
>>>>
>>>> Read this and the linked material, then see if your current argument is
>>>> necessary or even relevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initiatives_slippe
>>> ry_slo
>>>> pe
>>>>
>>>> Cheers - Jaimie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jaime,
>>>
>>> Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough. You guys seem to bu
>>> focused on how good the encryption is. I don't care _how_ Apple is
>>> implementing this or how great the illusion of privacy is. Who
>>> appointed Apple (and Google, and Faceberg, and Twitter, and any other
>>> tech company) to be vigilantes, snooping on their customers and
>>> reporting them to the government? If they want to prohibit certain
>>> content from their platforms, I guess under the current laws that's
>>> their business. But turning over the information to the Government?
>>> Even the article you cite admits it is a "slippery slope".
>>
>> child porn is illegal. apple and others are obligated to report it.
> I don't think anyone would disagree that they have an obligation to
> report it. The issue is do they have an obligation to go out and
> actively look for it.
That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
are uploaded to iCloud, and they are only scanned to see if they match a
list of specific images that have been collected of know child
pornography.
--
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 21:37:07 -0400, nospam wrote
> (in article <090820212137072281%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
>> In article <0001HW.DD372459...@news.astraweb.com>, Ed
>> Norton <nor...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So I have been reading with interest all the threads about Apple's plan
>>>>> to scan images for "Child Pornography". (I ignore the fact that the
>>>>> definitions of "child" and "pornography" are not even universally
>>>>> agreed upon.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't sound like you've actually read how Apple are implementing this.
>>>> It's all right out in the open, on Apple's site with whitepapers and
>>>> reviews and comments from appropriate researchers.
>>>>
>>>> Read this and the linked material, then see if your current argument is
>>>> necessary or even relevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initiatives_slippe
>>> ry_slo
>>>> pe
>>>>
>>>> Cheers - Jaimie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jaime,
>>>
>>> Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough. You guys seem to bu
>>> focused on how good the encryption is. I don't care _how_ Apple is
>>> implementing this or how great the illusion of privacy is. Who
>>> appointed Apple (and Google, and Faceberg, and Twitter, and any other
>>> tech company) to be vigilantes, snooping on their customers and
>>> reporting them to the government? If they want to prohibit certain
>>> content from their platforms, I guess under the current laws that's
>>> their business. But turning over the information to the Government?
>>> Even the article you cite admits it is a "slippery slope".
>>
>> child porn is illegal. apple and others are obligated to report it.
> I don't think anyone would disagree that they have an obligation to
> report it. The issue is do they have an obligation to go out and
> actively look for it.
That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
are uploaded to iCloud, and they are only scanned to see if they match a
list of specific images that have been collected of know child
pornography.
--
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
JF Mezei
Aug 11, 2021, 1:42:38 AM8/11/21
to
On 2021-08-10 14:05, Lewis wrote:
> That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
> are uploaded to iCloud,
The tag is already part of omage as it is being transfered to iLcoud so
> That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
> are uploaded to iCloud,
it must be scalled (an CPU intensive process) prior to the upload.
Stopp trying to protect Apple purposefully confusing text.
They knew there would be opposition and prepared their PR campaign with
enough weasel words to let the apologists (you) do their work. Meanwhile
Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
the minority to try to discredit the very serious privacy experts who
have hige opposition to Apple's move.
With the system in place, the FBI now only needs a court order and Apple
all of a sudden will be scanning for any/all images and/or other content.
Constrast that with Apple telling the FBI to get lost for the San
Bernadino case because it just wasn't possible. Now Apple has built in
those backdoors to make it possible.
Bernd Froehlich
Aug 11, 2021, 3:28:45 AM8/11/21
to
On 11. Aug 2021 at 07:42:34 CEST, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Meanwhile
> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
> the minority
Check your sources...
> Meanwhile
> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
> the minority
Joerg Lorenz
Aug 11, 2021, 3:59:55 AM8/11/21
to
Am 11.08.21 um 09:28 schrieb Bernd Froehlich:
That is exactely what he deed. Check *your* sources.
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
nospam
Aug 11, 2021, 10:49:10 AM8/11/21
to
In article <frJQI.39752$Fx8....@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei
> They knew there would be opposition and prepared their PR campaign with
> enough weasel words to let the apologists (you) do their work. Meanwhile
> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
> the minority to try to discredit the very serious privacy experts who
> have hige opposition to Apple's move.
tim cook did not say that.
> With the system in place, the FBI now only needs a court order and Apple
> all of a sudden will be scanning for any/all images and/or other content.
nope.
> Constrast that with Apple telling the FBI to get lost for the San
> Bernadino case because it just wasn't possible. Now Apple has built in
> those backdoors to make it possible.
they haven't built in any doors, front or back.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
> > are uploaded to iCloud,
>
>
> The tag is already part of omage as it is being transfered to iLcoud so
> it must be scalled (an CPU intensive process) prior to the upload.
> Stopp trying to protect Apple purposefully confusing text.
nope.
>
> > That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
> > are uploaded to iCloud,
>
>
> The tag is already part of omage as it is being transfered to iLcoud so
> it must be scalled (an CPU intensive process) prior to the upload.
> Stopp trying to protect Apple purposefully confusing text.
> They knew there would be opposition and prepared their PR campaign with
> enough weasel words to let the apologists (you) do their work. Meanwhile
> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
> the minority to try to discredit the very serious privacy experts who
> have hige opposition to Apple's move.
> With the system in place, the FBI now only needs a court order and Apple
> all of a sudden will be scanning for any/all images and/or other content.
> Constrast that with Apple telling the FBI to get lost for the San
> Bernadino case because it just wasn't possible. Now Apple has built in
> those backdoors to make it possible.
Alan Baker
Aug 11, 2021, 11:48:12 AM8/11/21
to
On 2021-08-11 12:59 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 11.08.21 um 09:28 schrieb Bernd Froehlich:
>> On 11. Aug 2021 at 07:42:34 CEST, "JF Mezei"
>> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile
>>> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
>>> the minority
>>
>> Check your sources...
>
> That is exactely what he deed. Check *your* sources.
>
>
No... ...it is NOT what Cook did.
> Am 11.08.21 um 09:28 schrieb Bernd Froehlich:
>> On 11. Aug 2021 at 07:42:34 CEST, "JF Mezei"
>> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile
>>> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
>>> the minority
>>
>> Check your sources...
>
> That is exactely what he deed. Check *your* sources.
>
>
There was an internal memo sent around Apple that quoted someone else:
'That portion of the memo was written by NCMEC Executive Director of
Strategic Partnerships Marita Rodriguez. "I know it's been a long day
and that many of you probably haven't slept in 24 hours. We know that
the days to come will be filled with the screeching voices of the
minority. Our voices will be louder. Our commitment to lift up kids who
have lived through the most unimaginable abuse and victimizations will
be stronger," Rodriguez wrote.
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/apple-says-it-will-refuse-govt-demands-to-expand-photo-scanning-beyond-csam/>
Lewis
Aug 11, 2021, 4:55:39 PM8/11/21
to
In message <frJQI.39752$Fx8....@fx45.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2021-08-10 14:05, Lewis wrote:
>> That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
>> are uploaded to iCloud,
> The tag is already part of omage as it is being transfered to iLcoud so
> it must be scalled (an CPU intensive process) prior to the upload.
You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
> On 2021-08-10 14:05, Lewis wrote:
>> That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
>> are uploaded to iCloud,
> The tag is already part of omage as it is being transfered to iLcoud so
> it must be scalled (an CPU intensive process) prior to the upload.
> Stopp trying to protect Apple purposefully confusing text.
--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Oooh, I think so Brain, but I think I'd rather eat the Macarena."
Wolffan
Aug 15, 2021, 11:21:39 AM8/15/21
to
On 2021 Aug 11, JF Mezei wrote
(in article <frJQI.39752$Fx8....@fx45.iad>):
> On 2021-08-10 14:05, Lewis wrote:
>
> > That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
> > are uploaded to iCloud,
>
> The tag is already part of omage as it is being transfered to iLcoud so
> it must be scalled (an CPU intensive process) prior to the upload.
> Stopp trying to protect Apple purposefully confusing text.
>
> They knew there would be opposition and prepared their PR campaign with
> enough weasel words to let the apologists (you) do their work. Meanwhile
> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
> the minority to try to discredit the very serious privacy experts who
> have hige opposition to Apple's move.
Tim Cook didn’t say that. The person who did is quoted on Ars Tech... and
you clearly have. done _zero_ research into the question. This one line
utterly invalidates any point that you might have had, as you clearly did not
do the work necessary to make a point.
You’re being unusually silly, well beyond your normal level of silliness.
(in article <frJQI.39752$Fx8....@fx45.iad>):
> On 2021-08-10 14:05, Lewis wrote:
>
> > That is not at all what is happening. Photos are only scanned when they
> > are uploaded to iCloud,
>
> The tag is already part of omage as it is being transfered to iLcoud so
> it must be scalled (an CPU intensive process) prior to the upload.
> Stopp trying to protect Apple purposefully confusing text.
>
> They knew there would be opposition and prepared their PR campaign with
> enough weasel words to let the apologists (you) do their work. Meanwhile
> Tim Cook called its customers who oppose its move screeching voices of
> the minority to try to discredit the very serious privacy experts who
> have hige opposition to Apple's move.
you clearly have. done _zero_ research into the question. This one line
utterly invalidates any point that you might have had, as you clearly did not
do the work necessary to make a point.
>
>
> With the system in place, the FBI now only needs a court order and Apple
> all of a sudden will be scanning for any/all images and/or other content.
They’re not scanning. You haven’t done your homework.
>
> With the system in place, the FBI now only needs a court order and Apple
> all of a sudden will be scanning for any/all images and/or other content.
>
>
> Constrast that with Apple telling the FBI to get lost for the San
> Bernadino case because it just wasn't possible. Now Apple has built in
> those backdoors to make it possible.
They haven’t set up a backdoor.
>
> Constrast that with Apple telling the FBI to get lost for the San
> Bernadino case because it just wasn't possible. Now Apple has built in
> those backdoors to make it possible.
You’re being unusually silly, well beyond your normal level of silliness.
0 new messages