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

[sam_gordon]

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.

Oh, I'm not picturing someone taking a company to court because they won't support something (well sort of, keep reading). Here's the situation I'm picturing. Let's say in January, you purchased a new phone under the "payment" plan. So you owe for the next 24 months. Sometime in that 24 months, the phone company says "here, you HAVE to take this upgrade (which has the privacy waiver in it) or your phone won't work." That's what I mean by "forcing" the upgrade. To continue, there's still not a court case (IMO of course). BUT, let's say this "hash" thing goofs up somehow, and your life is ruined. THEN I think there might be a court case because you were forced into the upgrade that allowed the mistake to happen.

 

[dez1978]

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?

That’s different than going thru every iPhone users photos. Having a database of missing children is not an invasion of privacy. Searching thru someone’s private photos without probable cause or a warrant is not the same as having a database of those kids. Searching someone’s photos when you have probable cause to think they’ve done something illegal is fine. But that’s not what this is. And it’s not just because of the person I know going thru stuff but I’ve been in the criminal justice field for 20 years and worked on corrections and seen all sorts of things that make me feel the way I do about this.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That’s different than going thru every iPhone users photos. Having a database of missing children is not an invasion of privacy. Searching thru someone’s private photos without probable cause or a warrant is not the same as having a database of those kids. Searching someone’s photos when you have probable cause to think they’ve done something illegal is fine. But that’s not what this is. And it’s not just because of the person I know going thru stuff but I’ve been in the criminal justice field for 20 years and worked on corrections and seen all sorts of things that make me feel the way I do about this.

Have you been following what they are actually doing though?

A photo is taken, a hash is created. A user opts to store that to the iCloud. Apple looks through iCloud for matches in hashes based off those databases. If a match occurs that's when the image becomes viewable rather than just being a unique number. They aren't going through everyone's phone, they aren't going through everyone's photos either.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

BUT, let's say this "hash" thing goofs up somehow, and your life is ruined.

"If the person doing the manual review concludes the system did not make an error, then Apple will disable the user’s iCloud account, and send a report to NCMEC or notify law enforcement if necessary. Users can file an appeal to Apple if they think their account was flagged by mistake"

 

[dez1978]

Have you been following what they are actually doing though?

A photo is taken, a hash is created. A user opts to store that to the iCloud. Apple looks through iCloud for matches in hashes based off those databases. If a match occurs that's when the image becomes viewable rather than just being a unique number. They aren't going through everyone's phone, they aren't going through everyone's photos either.

I get that. I still don’t think it’s ok. And if you can opt out, really what’s the point? Do we think all these people are too stupid to opt out and are gonna keep uploading these to the cloud once they know this is occurring? I guess my biggest issue is that 1, Apple has always been big on privacy and even refusing to unlock phones for the police. Now they’ve changed their tune. And sure they are allowed to do that. But I totally think this falls under the slippery slope category. And I’m the 1st one generally to say that phrase is over used. But I can see how easily this could turn into something else.

 

[disneydreamer1980]

This is scary on so many levels.

 

[neverlandsky]

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

Not likely. There will be terms of agreement and conditions for product usage and very fine print you’ll have agree to.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I get that. I still don’t think it’s ok. And if you can opt out, really what’s the point? Do we think all these people are too stupid to opt out and are gonna keep uploading these to the cloud once they know this is occurring? I guess my biggest issue is that 1, Apple has always been big on privacy and even refusing to unlock phones for the police. Now they’ve changed their tune. And sure they are allowed to do that. But I totally think this falls under the slippery slope category. And I’m the 1st one generally to say that phrase is over used. But I can see how easily this could turn into something else.

I understand not liking it, but I wasn't commenting whether any of us has to like it or not.

Apple as I understand it faced pressure from law enforcement they see this as more of a medium. All cell phone providers have been iffy on opening phones just for anyone and have generally been selective on when they allow access for law enforcement. As far as refusing to unlock for the police there are certain laws that will force providers to do xyz. Kelsey Smith Act is one that in states that have passed it allow access to the phone's location via pinging. A girl only had to be kidnapped and sexually assaulted and murdered and years worth of trying for courts to hear it and pass it for that to happen but now if there is a perception of danger one can bypass the cell phone provider's refusal. It was over 4 days by the way for the cell phone provider to give up her cell phone records. Once they had her phone's location they found her body within 45mins. Imagine if they had the ability to locate her quicker...Granted this is a law that is passed in many states now (has been looked at in Federal courts for all states) so I understand viewing law vs TOS. However, the topic at hand IMO is serious enough to warrant a slightly different outlook than my normal viewpoint of erroring on the side of privacy. I respect that child abuse and sexual abuse of minors in photographic evidence isn't serious enough for some to outweigh the perceived cons. I do understand the privacy concerns and normally side with that. I don't here.

I believe opting out would function for future photos but I'm not sure you can do anything about past photos already stored in the iCloud (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[dd316]

"If the person doing the manual review concludes the system did not make an error, then Apple will disable the user’s iCloud account, and send a report to NCMEC or notify law enforcement if necessary. Users can file an appeal to Apple if they think their account was flagged by mistake"

So shoot first and ask questions later?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So shoot first and ask questions later?

Just relaying the information. Not different than a lot of things you encounter in life, no?

Believe you got a ticket in error or want to state your case? Appeal it (via whatever way be it mail, electronic, or show up in court).

Have a post that gets flagged on various social media sites (including this one)? State your case and appeal the decision.

Property valuation amount an error? Appeal it

Service charge on an account you don't believe should be charged? Appeal it

And just a ton more stuff one can think of where an action is taken and you have the opportunity to rebut the action taken.

 

[PlainJane]

Yeah, I’ve had to take a photo of both of my kids (super young) in a state of undress because of allergic reactions. And yeah, both their doctors asked for the photos because they wanted to see what the reaction looked like at its “height” not when it calmed down and we had gotten them to the doctor’s office. We also have these photos to compare to new allergic reactions.

My eldest has insane reactions to bug bites. My youngest has severe food allergies and an INGESTED food reaction caused hives first in a very unexpected place before spreading to his entire body. He has one food allergy that only causes hives and his others cause hives and anaphylaxis. He can develop hives from just touching the allergy even when it’s not even visible on a surface. I get to drive to the ER a lot. I’ve watched him blacking out as I drove him to the ER and we had already given him his epipen. I’m just over here trying to keep my kids alive and healthy.

Seriously, please take a step back anyone who thinks there is no legitimate reason for me to have a picture of my kids in a state of undress, that a good parent would have no reason to do it for medical reasons.

I’m a childhood sexual abuse survivor and so is my husband. We are neurotic when it comes to protecting our kids from ever enduring what we did. I am not in any way in favor of Apple doing this. How about we make the punishments more than a slap on the wrist and then sending the monsters back into the community to reoffend. Like, let’s invade everyone’s privacy so we can send someone away for 6 months every once in awhile.

 

[Wendy1985]

Apple can look all they want nothing to hide 95 percent of my photos and videos are put online anyway

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yeah, I’ve had to take a photo of both of my kids (super young) in a state of undress because of allergic reactions. And yeah, both their doctors asked for the photos because they wanted to see what the reaction looked like at its “height” not when it calmed down and we had gotten them to the doctor’s office. We also have these photos to compare to new allergic reactions.

My eldest has insane reactions to bug bites. My youngest has severe food allergies and an INGESTED food reaction caused hives first in a very unexpected place before spreading to his entire body. He has one food allergy that only causes hives and his others cause hives and anaphylaxis. He can develop hives from just touching the allergy even when it’s not even visible on a surface. I get to drive to the ER a lot. I’ve watched him blacking out as I drove him to the ER and we had already given him his epipen. I’m just over here trying to keep my kids alive and healthy.

Seriously, please take a step back anyone who thinks there is no legitimate reason for me to have a picture of my kids in a state of undress, that a good parent would have no reason to do it for medical reasons.

I’m a childhood sexual abuse survivor and so is my husband. We are neurotic when it comes to protecting our kids from ever enduring what we did. I am not in any way in favor of Apple doing this. How about we make the punishments more than a slap on the wrist and then sending the monsters back into the community to reoffend. Like, let’s invade everyone’s privacy so we can send someone away for 6 months every once in awhile.

"Apple will only be able to review images that match content that’s already known and reported to these databases — it won’t be able to detect parents’ photos of their kids in the bath, for example, as these images won’t be part of the NCMEC database."

 

[kanerf]

This is the same Apple the refuses to unlock the phones of suspected terrorists at US Government request.

 

[Kellykins1218]

Doesn't bother me at all

 

[PollyannaMom]

...Not different than a lot of things you encounter in life, no?

Believe you got a ticket in error or want to state your case? Appeal it (via whatever way be it mail, electronic, or show up in court)...

The problem is the public nature of these accusations. While you are appealing a traffic ticket, you don't lose your job, your house, your friends...

My DH knew someone who was mistakenly accused of child abuse. He and his family went through (word I probably can't type on the DIS) for a good two years before it was all resolved.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The problem is the public nature of these accusations. While you are appealing a traffic ticket, you don't lose your job, your house, your friends...

My DH knew someone who was mistakenly accused of child abuse. He and his family went through (word I probably can't type on the DIS) for a good two years before it was all resolved.

I mean respectfully that's an assumption on your part though, that none of those things have ever impacted someone's livelihood. It's certainly not something I can make that assumption on

There's been local stories of traffic infractions hurting someone's reputation, costing them their job (especially if you have to take time out to go to court...one of the reasons a lot of lower income people have issues--have you not seen the vast amount of documentaries about lower income individuals and the struggle for just parking tickets among other things), you can def. lose your friends, lost income means your housing is at risk, etc. If you consider how a large part of things work in our society where you have X happen and then have to deal with it later Apple's verbiage of you appealing it should you think it's incorrect it's not at all abnormal or uncommon. We just don't tend to think of it and the topic of child abuse and sexual abuse is a very sensitive one (understandably so). Doesn't mean I don't see the protentional consequences just that it's hardly new, hardly an only Apple thing (which was my initial point in that comment).

I don't think people are denying false accusations occur, the moral question is do we continue with the status quo or attempt to improve for the greater good here, because of the minority stories of accusations that end up false all I can personally think of is the victims who may be helped; no system is 100% perfect. But that's the moral question you (general you) have to ask yourself because frankly seeing those stories of the sex rings in my area (and it's not the first nor will it be the last unfortunately) makes me so sick to my stomach, for pete's sake a 4 year old.

It also doesn't mean that Apple or anyone else continues with such process that is being implemented if the net gains (which is hopefully quicker and more cases resolved/found) don't end up panning out.

 

[starry_solo]

That’s different than going thru every iPhone users photos. Having a database of missing children is not an invasion of privacy. Searching thru someone’s private photos without probable cause or a warrant is not the same as having a database of those kids. Searching someone’s photos when you have probable cause to think they’ve done something illegal is fine. But that’s not what this is. And it’s not just because of the person I know going thru stuff but I’ve been in the criminal justice field for 20 years and worked on corrections and seen all sorts of things that make me feel the way I do about this.

The U.S. Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) protects the public against governmental intrusions - city, county, state, federal governments. It does not prevent a private company such as Apple (or any company) from going through people's clouds, storage, etc.

Does anyone actually read all the terms & conditions of use of the cell phone (or anything) they purchase to see if it actually includes any rights to privacy? I haven't...

 

[dez1978]

I understand not liking it, but I wasn't commenting whether any of us has to like it or not.

Apple as I understand it faced pressure from law enforcement they see this as more of a medium. All cell phone providers have been iffy on opening phones just for anyone and have generally been selective on when they allow access for law enforcement. As far as refusing to unlock for the police there are certain laws that will force providers to do xyz. Kelsey Smith Act is one that in states that have passed it allow access to the phone's location via pinging. A girl only had to be kidnapped and sexually assaulted and murdered and years worth of trying for courts to hear it and pass it for that to happen but now if there is a perception of danger one can bypass the cell phone provider's refusal. It was over 4 days by the way for the cell phone provider to give up her cell phone records. Once they had her phone's location they found her body within 45mins. Imagine if they had the ability to locate her quicker...Granted this is a law that is passed in many states now (has been looked at in Federal courts for all states) so I understand viewing law vs TOS. However, the topic at hand IMO is serious enough to warrant a slightly different outlook than my normal viewpoint of erroring on the side of privacy. I respect that child abuse and sexual abuse of minors in photographic evidence isn't serious enough for some to outweigh the perceived cons. I do understand the privacy concerns and normally side with that. I don't here.

I believe opting out would function for future photos but I'm not sure you can do anything about past photos already stored in the iCloud (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Again, that’s a totally different scenario than this. Pinging a phone for location when there’s a likelihood of harm is not anywhere near searching thru someone’s photos to see if there’s anything that MIGHT be suspicious. Having probable cause to look for something vs just looking at every ones stuff “just in case” are not the same. Not even close.

 

[dez1978]

The U.S. Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) protects the public against governmental intrusions - city, county, state, federal governments. It does not prevent a private company such as Apple (or any company) from going through people's clouds, storage, etc.

Does anyone actually read all the terms & conditions of use of the cell phone (or anything) they purchase to see if it actually includes any rights to privacy? I haven't...

I never said it was unconstitutional. I said it wasn’t right. And if they are doing it bc they are being pressured to by law enforcement and this is their way of appeasing them it’s not that much different. I wonder tho if anything Apple turns over would be admissible in court if it’s not implicitly laid out in tbe TOS. It will be interesting to see how it plays out the first time it goes to court. Not the legality of the action per se bc obviously it’s not illegal but that doesn’t mean it would be admissible in court.