Apple is going to look through your photos on your phone looking for child abuse pictures

[kdonnel]

This is something I read: "system is built so that it only works and only can work with images cataloged by NCMEC or other child safety organizations, and that the way it build the cryptography prevents it from being used for other purposes. Apple can’t add additional hashes to the database, it said. Apple said that it is presenting its system to cryptography experts to certify that it can detect illegal child exploitation images without compromising user privacy."

I'm not saying Apple can add hashes.

Experts are saying it is ripe for abuse by the government to add hashes.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm not saying Apple can add hashes.

Experts are saying it is ripe for abuse by the government to add hashes.

I know, it wasn't against you personally, just adding in that information as a response to the concern with some of the information known. I get the backend concern but what does the government gain by cluttering up a database such that we're talking about by adding in unnecessary hashes. I get that the concern for some people (and those analyzing the move) is the unknown that gets the concern going but in some respects it's thinking through what's the net gain. The government may do questionable things at times but I'm questioning they would use a database for missing and exploitered children as a means for it. And if you want to think about it in terms of the government adding in hashes then Apple's move here has zero bearing on that as the government already could be doing this IF people really think that. So I'd turn it around and ask the analysts why they are inserting this into Apple's move if they are so concerned with it it would have needed to have been a concern years ago when the database(s) for this purpose were created. That seems more about taking an idea and running with it. They already use the database just typically in a slower manner so if you're (general you're) concern is added images into the database that should have been your concern all along.

 

[dez1978]

This is to catch and prosecute those who produce and purchase child pornography! These folks do not deserve privacy!

What about the people who have done nothing wrong but get caught up in crap bc of this? Do you this this system will be fool proof and every single pic it detects will actually be of child porn/abuse? Do you really think that police never arrest innocent people?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What about the people who have done nothing wrong but get caught up in crap bc of this? Do you this this system will be fool proof and every single pic it detects will actually be of child porn/abuse? Do you really think that police never arrest innocent people?

It's a sensitive subject for you I understand but that's the situation that happens in other areas, it doesn't mean we don't employ things in the first place. Don't think that by me saying that that I don't sympathize with the situation of the person you knew, however it that thought process was applied to everything there would be virtually nothing society would do at all. The point of many of our things we do isn't to remove it from being done in the first place, it's to reduce issues that arise or could arise.

I suppose the question might be asked based on your comments on this thread are you in favor of a database like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to begin with? And if so how do you want them to match these images?

 

[jesusfreak75]

You should also get rid of FB, Instagram, Twitter, the DIS, email, etc.....

I’ll certainly be able to with a flip phone won’t I?

 

[lifesavacation]

I don’t have an issue if it’s in the cloud. I do have strong objections to them scanning photos on my actual phone. I don’t back up to the cloud for this reason. It’s not secure. And I have nothing to hide but I do believe in an individual’s right to privacy and any type of search or seizure needs to have a legal process to it.

Apple has always been on the side of user privacy so I’ll have to learn more about this proposal before I get too upset about it.

 

[leahgoogle]

This is to catch and prosecute those who produce and purchase child pornography! These folks do not deserve privacy!

Those folks don’t deserve privacy, but folks who aren’t engaged in any sick or illegal activity do deserve privacy.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don’t have an issue if it’s in the cloud. I do have strong objections to them scanning photos on my actual phone.

This is where I land. By me uploading pictures to a 3rd party (whether that be Apple, Amazon, Instagram, Photobucket, Facebook, etc), I understand (and agree) that I have now given permission to that 3rd party to use the pictures as they see fit. That would include (but not limited to) handing them over to the government, scanning them, etc.

However, I think it's a problem that a 3rd party (Apple in this case) is reaching into MY phone.

My analogy... if I'm cooking meth on the porch, the police can see me and arrest me. However, if I'm doing it in the privacy of my house, ABSENT ANY OTHER SUSPICION, the police shouldn't be allowed to walk into my house and search it. I know some here would say "You're breaking the law, you don't have a right to privacy." I understand that viewpoint, but disagree. EVERYONE should have the same rights. What other rights would you (general, not the poster I quoted) like to get rid of because officials THINK you've committed a crime? The right to remain silent? The right to a lawyer?

 

[Buzz Rules]

I wonder how long until someone sues and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

However, I think it's a problem that a 3rd party (Apple in this case) is reaching into MY phone.

"The system only works on images uploaded to iCloud, which users can turn off, Apple said. Photos or other images on a device that haven’t been uploaded to Apple servers won’t be part of the system."

 

[GAN]

However, I think it's a problem that a 3rd party (Apple in this case) is reaching into MY phone.

I agree with you. BUT... while it is YOUR phone, it isn't YOUR software or YOUR network or anything else. Just some plastic, glass, and semiconductors(and a few other things). I imagine Apple's legal staff has all their ducks in a row. No need for a case before the Supreme Court here!

 

[sam_gordon]

I agree with you. BUT... while it is YOUR phone, it isn't YOUR software or YOUR network or anything else. Just some plastic, glass, and semiconductors(and a few other things). I imagine Apple's legal staff has all their ducks in a row. No need for a case before the Supreme Court here!

But it IS software, plastic, glass, and semiconductors that *I* purchased. Apple made it and sold it to me. It is now my property. Can the dealership you purchased your car from come search your car? I mean it's just plastic, glass, and semiconductors that they put together, right?

There's not a need for the Supreme Court YET. If no one suffers any harm, it will never go to court.

ETA: I'll give you it's their network. But if it's a picture I'm keeping on my phone and not uploading, then it's not going over their network, so, IMO at least, they have no right to it.

 

[GAN]

But it IS software, plastic, glass, and semiconductors that *I* purchased. Apple made it and sold it to me. It is now my property. Can the dealership you purchased your car from come search your car? I mean it's just plastic, glass, and semiconductors that they put together, right?

There's not a need for the Supreme Court YET. If no one suffers any harm, it will never go to court.

ETA: I'll give you it's their network. But if it's a picture I'm keeping on my phone and not uploading, then it's not going over their network, so, IMO at least, they have no right to it.

They're searching software, not hardware. The photos are stored within programs existing on OUR hardware. We don't have to download iOS if we can make the phone work without it -then we'd be free, clear, and safe from Apple's eyes....

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It is now my property.

I know the point you're making just adding in until you've fully paid off any phone it's not truly yours.

One of the things I sorta disliked about companies discontinuing service plan contracts. I used to get phones for $50 to $0 just sign a 2 year contract. But when that went away it was either pay full price (which back when I got my S9 Edge I think it was $800-$900) or pay in installments. Technically I'm with Sprint and Sprint didn't even have an option for monthly payments it was lease the phone (which means it's never actually your property) or pay outright for the phone. However, when I upgraded last (over 3 years ago) Best Buy was running a deal. $20.50 per month for 2 years and they pay something like $350 towards the phone. Until I paid off the balance of the phone the phone didn't fully belong to me. It was 2 years before that happened (as I didn't choose to pay off early as I would have had to pay the full balance owed).

I believe Apple has monthly installment options too and thus until the balance is fully paid off it's not your phone.

Again I understand the point you're making but I think that point could come into play IF legal action from some citizen ever came to be. Just like having a lien on a car with a car loan or leasing a vehicle.

 

[sam_gordon]

They're searching software, not hardware. The photos are stored within programs existing on OUR hardware. We don't have to download iOS if we can make the phone work without it -then we'd be free, clear, and safe from Apple's eyes....

I'd agree with that argument if this was listed as a possibility BEFORE purchasing the phone. However, what it sounds like (and maybe I'm wrong) is someone who has had their phone for months or years and/or could still be paying on it under contract would still be subject to this. I have a problem (theoretical, granted) with someone invading my privacy without reasonable suspicion. No, I've done nothing wrong. But that doesn't mean I think anyone can come in and search my home, or my home PC, or my phone.

And I wonder, that once you've said "ok" to this "hash" thing... "sure you can come look at my pictures", does it open up to search your phones for other things? Can you say "you're only allowed to search for x."?

And yes, I know PP said they're (apple) searching the cloud. I'm continuing the argument on the phone based on a hypothetical.

 

[sam_gordon]

I know the point you're making just adding in until you've fully paid off any phone it's not truly yours.

One of the things I sorta disliked about companies discontinuing service plan contracts. I used to get phones for $50 to $0 just sign a 2 year contract. But when that went away it was either pay full price (which back when I got my S9 Edge I think it was $800-$900) or pay in installments. Technically I'm with Sprint and Sprint didn't even have an option for monthly payments it was lease the phone (which means it's never actually your property) or pay outright for the phone. However, when I upgraded last (over 3 years ago) Best Buy was running a deal. $20.50 per month for 2 years and they pay something like $350 towards the phone. Until I paid off the balance of the phone the phone didn't fully belong to me. It was 2 years before that happened (as I didn't choose to pay off early as I would have had to pay the full balance owed).

I believe Apple has monthly installment options too and thus until the balance is fully paid off it's not your phone.

Again I understand the point you're making but I think that point could come into play IF legal action from some citizen ever came to be.

Possibly. If you're going to use that argument, wouldn't that mean the bank or dealer still owns your car? And the bank/lender owns your house? (both of course until the loan is paid off) And by "owns", I mean they can do what they want and you don't have a say so?

ETA: And I agree, if it's in the contract when I purchase the phone that whoever is financing it can do x, y, or z, I'd understand and (reluctantly) agree. However, I'm guessing that's not part of the contract that was handed out in the past.

 

[GAN]

I'd agree with that argument if this was listed as a possibility BEFORE purchasing the phone. However, what it sounds like (and maybe I'm wrong) is someone who has had their phone for months or years and/or could still be paying on it under contract would still be subject to this. I have a problem (theoretical, granted) with someone invading my privacy without reasonable suspicion. No, I've done nothing wrong. But that doesn't mean I think anyone can come in and search my home, or my home PC, or my phone.

And I wonder, that once you've said "ok" to this "hash" thing... "sure you can come look at my pictures", does it open up to search your phones for other things? Can you say "you're only allowed to search for x."?

And yes, I know PP said they're (apple) searching the cloud. I'm continuing the argument on the phone based on a hypothetical.

I don't necessarily disagree ...I just think that is the way they justify it(and make it hold in courts). When we download iOS, we agree to their terms of service. I've never thoroughly read it(has anyone? LOL) but would imagine there is something tucked in there.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't necessarily disagree ...I just think that is the way they justify it(and make it hold in courts). When we download iOS, we agree to their terms of service. I've never thoroughly read it(has anyone? LOL) but would imagine there is something tucked in there.

True. BUT, can an argument be made that they're "forcing" you into the new TOS? If you don't upgrade, your phone doesn't work (after a while). It would be interesting to see this in court, but I doubt it ever will be.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Possibly. If you're going to use that argument, wouldn't that mean the bank or dealer still owns your car? And the bank/lender owns your house? (both of course until the loan is paid off) And by "owns", I mean they can do what they want and you don't have a say so?

I was simply and I repeat simply responding to your comment about "Apple made it and sold it to me. It is now my property."

If your home is a total loss and it has a mortgage on it the check doesn't go to you, it goes to the mortgage company. If you have a lease on a vehicle and have a total loss the check doesn't go to you it goes to the leasee. If you are behind on payments the mortgage company can foreclose on you, if you stop making payments on your vehicle the leasing company can repossess your vehicle.

Anyways..please don't make this a "what if" back and forth

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

True. BUT, can an argument be made that they're "forcing" you into the new TOS? If you don't upgrade, your phone doesn't work (after a while). It would be interesting to see this in court, but I doubt it ever will be.

My mom had an S6. T-Mobile notified her a few months back that it would no longer support her phone come September I think it was so either upgrade or go elsewhere. I don't know how Apple functions on it in terms of that component. But my mom just got a new S21+ so she's fine now she didn't really want to upgrade though.

I don't see anyone taking any of these cell phone providers to court over them saying they will no longer support a certain phone (which is about operating systems as it is other functions of the phone and T-Mobile isn't the first to be the ones to do that) nor have people, to my knowledge, has anyone taken Microsoft or whomever to court when they've notified customers who have a certain operating system that they will no longer support them nor to my knowledge have people taken websites to court when they don't work on a certain operating system (either too old or actually too new/incompatible as has happened with Chrome IME). So I'm not sure there's any legal standing for a court to see what you're talking about. It's not the first time people have been told "do this or your whatever won't work anymore". And I don't know about you but I frequently have apps (FB, Disney's apps, game apps, etc) that have functionality issues until I update them. I know Disney's app has forced updated to get the new TOS on them or it wouldn't work at all.

FWIW my mom was under Sprint's network, Sprint's plan, etc prior to the notification she got. Now she was forced to switch to T-Mobile's network and plans. Eventually I will have to do the same as the merger only required a certain amount of years for grandfathered in people.