On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article<news:iqhm3bF9rulU17@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>> protecting children isn't something we should stop doing just because
>> a few gullible idiots are "outraged" by it anyway.
>
> What else does Apple need to do

Nothing.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<news:160920211519244822%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>
>> stop babbling about things you clearly do not understand at all.
>
> How is it you read the same Apple white papers and Apple faq on how
> Apple hopes it will work that thousands of security experts at EFF and
> around the world read, and you come to a different conclusion than
> those experts did?

Because he has nothing to gain by tricking gullible fools into believing
it's something bad.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<news:160920211610097573%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>> the eff is pushing their propaganda story to gain popularity and
>> donations. it's that simple.
>
> Was it only the EFF who was adamantly against what Apple was planning
> to do?

Are you actually suggesting only one entity in the world can be biased?
You really *are* that gullible.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article <si0aff$9lm$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> The EFF doesn't look at perception, they look at reality. And to be
> fair, they did at least state that it is a "narrow back door."

it's not any type of backdoor, which means they didn't look at reality.

they *did* look at perception and that by claiming it was, they could
gain popularity and profit from it.

> A "white paper," published by the entity that is opening the backdoor in
> the first place, doesn't have much influence on the very smart people at
> EFF. The old joke of "we're shipping data sheets in volume," applies
> equally to "white papers."

logical fallacy along with accusing apple of lying. you're desperate.

> "When ignorance screams, intelligence shuts up"

you have that backwards. intelligence is what shuts up screaming
ignorance, although in your case, it has had no effect whatsoever.

In article <si0al0$ani$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >>>> Do your csam scanning on
> >>>> iCloud just like everyone else. There will be a lot less outrage from the
> >>>> general public than scanning their personal devices.
> >>>
> >>> along with a lot less privacy, with a system that can't be audited.
> >>>
> >>> with what you suggest, a government or other entity could force apple
> >>> to expand the search parameters and nobody would ever know.
> >>
> >> That would be better because they will catch more perverts or criminals. As
> >> it is they will create new content or just not backup to iCloud.
> >
> > if apple was forced to expand their search parameters, the very thing
> > you don't want to happen, it could catch a *lot* of criminals.
> >
> > worse, you'd never know they expanded it or what might qualify as
> > illegal.
>
> It¹s still better than invading my personal device.

nobody invaded your personal device, certainly not apple.

>
> If they¹re being uploaded to iCloud then check them there. No need to check
> them on your private personal device and use up system resources.

the amount of resources it uses locally is imperceptible, and by doing
the check on the device, the entire pipeline can remain encrypted.

that makes it *more* secure than other solutions.

> How do you select which photos get uploaded and which don¹t anyway? Isn¹t
> it all or nothing?

it's not all or nothing, nor is it part of icloud backups either.

On 2021-09-16, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If they’re being uploaded to iCloud then check them there.

No thanks. Most of Apple's customers don't want Apple to decrypt their
data on Apple's servers - and neither does Apple.

> No need to check them on your private personal device and use up
> system resources.

There is a need: It's the best way to preserve privacy.

> How do you select which photos get uploaded and which don’t anyway?
> Isn’t it all or nothing?

Irrelevant since there is no requirement for you to store any of your
photos on Apple's servers.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article <si0arc$c1m$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Not everyone has the critical thinking skills and expertise of those at
> the EFF. Those that are endlessly insisting that there is no "back door"
> lack the knowledge to understand how all this works and the enormous
> potential for abuse. Or they really do understand and for some reason
> feel compelled to defend the initial proposal. You choose.

the correct choice is you don't understand anything about csam or
iphones in general, refuse to learn, and resort to logical fallacies
and insults because you have absolutely nothing to back up your
baseless and often laughable claims.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <si0arc$c1m$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not everyone has the critical thinking skills and expertise of those at
>> the EFF. Those that are endlessly insisting that there is no "back door"
>> lack the knowledge to understand how all this works and the enormous
>> potential for abuse. Or they really do understand and for some reason
>> feel compelled to defend the initial proposal. You choose.
>
> the correct choice is you don't understand anything about csam or
> iphones in general, refuse to learn, and resort to logical fallacies
> and insults because you have absolutely nothing to back up your
> baseless and often laughable claims.
>

You don’t seem to mind the constant insults being spewed by Jolly Roger,
Lewis, Rod Speed. Why don’t you chastise them too?

In article <si0cto$pn4$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Not everyone has the critical thinking skills and expertise of those at
> >> the EFF. Those that are endlessly insisting that there is no "back door"
> >> lack the knowledge to understand how all this works and the enormous
> >> potential for abuse. Or they really do understand and for some reason
> >> feel compelled to defend the initial proposal. You choose.
> >
> > the correct choice is you don't understand anything about csam or
> > iphones in general, refuse to learn, and resort to logical fallacies
> > and insults because you have absolutely nothing to back up your
> > baseless and often laughable claims.
> >
>
> You don¹t seem to mind the constant insults being spewed by Jolly Roger,
> Lewis, Rod Speed. Why don¹t you chastise them too?

i do, but other than rod speed, they're usually correct in their facts.

sms is highly disingenuous and thinks he's correct when it's so easy to
prove him wrong. he ignores those who correct him, instead resorting to
insults and logical fallacies rather than learn something new.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> only because they don't understand how it actually works and why it's
> better than what google, facebook, etc. are currently doing.

It's telling how the apologists always claim Apple is as bad as Facebook
and Google are (and, in this case, far worse).

What's funny is that Android users never blame Apple for Google flaws.
> only photos uploaded to icloud are checked.

And yet your iMessages are also bared wide open to hackers & governments.

> photos not uploaded are never checked.

How do you set up the iPhone to only upload some photos?

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> No thanks. Most of Apple's customers don't want Apple to decrypt their
> data on Apple's servers - and neither does Apple.

And yet decrypt your personal data is what Apple does every single day, as
Apple has said they refuse to break the law so when they get that letter,
they send your data in. Every single time.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
> Not everyone has the critical thinking skills and expertise of those at
> the EFF. Those that are endlessly insisting that there is no "back door"
> lack the knowledge to understand how all this works and the enormous
> potential for abuse. Or they really do understand and for some reason
> feel compelled to defend the initial proposal. You choose.

I think it's pretty clear that apologists (like nospam) are backing up Apple
no matter what, even as nospam knows there is no defense that is plausible.
*nospam will defend Apple to the death - no matter what Apple does*

Tellingly, nospam is becoming increasingly desperate, as shown by the fact
he is now claiming the whole world is wrong - and only he is correct.

The others however, particularly Jolly Roger, are just incredibly ignorant.
(never forget Jolly Roger doesn't even have a high school degree yet)

Not sure about why Alan Browne thinks opening up to hackers and to
governments this scanning of your personal data and messages on your phone
is a good idea...

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> the correct choice is you don't understand anything about csam or
> iphones in general, refuse to learn, and resort to logical fallacies
> and insults because you have absolutely nothing to back up your
> baseless and often laughable claims.

Someone tell me... Did nospam just now look in his own mirror?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> i do, but other than rod speed, they're usually correct in their facts.

You claim Jolly Roger, who couldn't even earn his high school diploma, is
always correct in his facts?

What about Alan Baker?

Do you claim Alan Baker too is always correct in his facts?
--
Or is it only when they defend Apple to the death like you always do?

In article <si0etr$3in$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> > only because they don't understand how it actually works and why it's
> > better than what google, facebook, etc. are currently doing.
>
> It's telling how the apologists always claim Apple is as bad as Facebook
> and Google are (and, in this case, far worse).

that's quite the twist.

Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote
> On 16/09/2021 at 17:28, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2021-09-16, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>> In message <shv3ci$2b5$1@gioia.aioe.org> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 16/09/2021 at 03:23, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <16y8ioruep95q$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy
>>>>> <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2021, nospam wrote
>>>>>> (in article<news:150920210158598871%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>>>>>> there are multiple ways to opt-out of csam checking,
>>>>>
>>>>>> How did you opt out to hackers & governments using the back doors?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no back door.
>>>
>>>> I've been watching this conversation and I am really am perplexed, so
>>>> I'm hoping that one of you knowledgeable folk here can clarify for me
>>>> and for others, maybe.
>>>
>>>> Why do some people think there is or is going to be a "back door"?
>>>
>>> A few possible reasons:
>>>
>>> o They are Androol trolls
>>> o They only read headlines
>>> o They only read posts form Androol trolls
>>> o They din't know what a back door is.
>>>
>>>> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is
>>>> no "back door"? TIA.
>>>
>>> A back door is a hidden feature or a flaw in software that allows
>>> unknown and unauthorized access to a computer's data. There is no
>>> hidden feature or flaw, not unknown access, no unauthorized access, no
>>> back door.
>>
>> Assuming Wilf really wants to know how Apple's proposed system works:
>>
>> Photo Library Scanning
>>
>> * photos being uploaded to Apple’s iCloud servers from your photo
>> library are examined on device just before upload (rather than after
>> upload on the server) — they are examined on device rather than in the
>> cloud by generating a hash of the photo being uploaded and comparing
>> that hash with an on-device hash database of known child abuse images
>>
>> * end users cannot access, view, or modify the database of known child
>> sexual abuse photos — nor can they identify which images were flagged
>>
>> * photos that match the hashes of known child sexual abuse photos are
>> flagged as potential violations by generating encrypted safety voucher
>> containing metadata about the matching photo and a visual derivative
>> of the photo with sensitive portions obscured — the safety voucher is
>> also uploaded to iCloud
>>
>> * your photos in iCloud are encrypted both in transit and at rest on the
>> servers, and Apple does not decrypt them or access them on the servers
>> in order to scan them, which means Apple employees know absolutely
>> nothing about photos that do not match hashes of known child sexual
>> abuse material — nor do they know anything about photos that are not
>> uploaded to Apple servers
>>
>> * the risk of the system incorrectly flagging an account is extremely
>> low (1 in 1 trillion probability of incorrectly flagging a given
>> account)
>>
>> * only accounts with safety vouchers that exceed a threshold of multiple
>> (over 30) matches to known child sexual abuse photos are able to be
>> reviewed by Apple employees — until this threshold is exceeded, the
>> encrypted vouchers cannot be viewed by anyone, thanks to an encryption
>> technology called private set intersection (also known as threshold
>> secret sharing)
>>
>> * only vouchers that are reviewed and verified by a human being to be
>> actual child abuse material are forwarded to authorities
>>
>> Child Protection in Messages
>>
>> * this feature is only available for accounts set up as families with
>> iCloud Family Sharing
>>
>> * parent/guardian accounts must opt in to turn on the feature for their
>> family group
>>
>> * parental notifications can only be enabled by parents/guardians for
>> child accounts age 12 or younger
>>
>> * when enabled, the feature uses on-device AI (rather than the
>> aforementioned database of hashes) to analyze images that are sent and
>> received by the child - this happens privately so that Apple does not
>> have any knowledge of it
>>
>> * if a child account sends or receives sexually explicit images, the
>> photo will be blurred and the child will be warned, presented with
>> helpful resources, and reassured it is okay if they do not want to
>> view or send the photo
>>
>> * if parents desire (they must opt-in), as additional precaution, young
>> children can also be told that, to make sure they are safe, their
>> parents will get a message if they do view it
>>
>> With this in mind, we know that if this matching activity concerns you,
>> you can opt out by refraining from uploading photos to iCloud (by
>> disabling iCloud Photos, My Photo Stream, and iMessage).
>>
>> * Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
>>
>> * Claims stating that Apple is supposedly scanning your entire device
>> 24/7 are unfounded.
>>
>> * Claims that Apple is scanning every single photo on your device are
>> also unfounded.
>>
>
> Thank you, that is very interesting. And yes, I do "want to know"!!!
>
> The only thing is, and this is something I've seen elsewhere, so it's not
> my own, could a malevolent government insist that other hashes were
> included in the database and therefore hijack the purpose of this move?

Even if they did, you can avoid it by not using the icloud.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>>
>>>> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
>>>> "back door"? TIA.
>>>
>>> A back door is a hidden feature or a flaw in software that allows
>>> unknown
>>> and unauthorized access to a computer's data. There is no hidden
>>> feature or flaw, not unknown access, no unauthorized access, no back
>>> door.
>>
>> yep. it's the very opposite.

> It is the juiciest piece of meat ever dangled in front of hackers.

More mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

> Even if it doesn’t meet the definition of a back door in your mind now

It doesn’t in the mind of anyone who knows what a backdoor is.

> it won’t be long before it will become one.

More mindless pig ignorant bullshit. It isn't even possible for any hacker
to do that.

RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote
> nospam wrot

>> it's designed specifically to prevent that.

> Apple can't control malware & government coders who open these back doors.

There is no back door to open.

On 16/09/2021 at 20:02, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2021-09-16, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, that is very interesting. And yes, I do "want to know"!!!
>
> That's comforting, because the trolls here are definitely *not*
> interested in having a rational, factual discussion about this. Their
> primary interest is trolling.
>
>> The only thing is, and this is something I've seen elsewhere, so it's
>> not my own, could a malevolent government insist that other hashes were
>> included in the database and therefore hijack the purpose of this move?
>
> No, because Apple would learn that the database was modified, and Apple
> employees who verify the secure safety vouchers as mentioned above would
> see that the matching images are not actually CSAM. And if that happened
> on a regular basis, it would be very obvious that the database is
> tainted.
>
> From Apple's FAQ (available at https://www.apple.com/child-safety):
>
> ---
> Can the CSAM detection system in iCloud Photos be used to detect things
> other than CSAM?
>
> Our process is designed to prevent that from happening. CSAM detection
> for iCloud Photos is built so that the system only works with CSAM image
> hashes provided by NCMEC and other child safety organizations. This
> set of image hashes is based on images acquired and validated to be
> CSAM by at least two child safety organizations. There is no automated
> reporting to law enforcement, and Apple conducts human review before
> making a report to NCMEC. As a result, the system is only designed to
> report photos that are known CSAM in iCloud Photos. In most countries,
> including the United States, simply possessing these images is a crime
> and Apple is obligated to report any instances we learn of to the
> appropriate authorities.
>
> Could governments force Apple to add non-CSAM images to the hash list?
>
> No. Apple would refuse such demands and our system has been designed to
> prevent that from happening. Apple’s CSAM detection capability is built
> solely to detect known CSAM images stored in iCloud Photos that have
> been identified by experts at NCMEC and other child safety groups. The
> set of image hashes used for matching are from known, existing images of
> CSAM and only contains entries that were independently submitted by two
> or more child safety orga- nizations operating in separate sovereign
> jurisdictions. Apple does not add to the set of known CSAM image hashes,
> and the system is designed to be auditable. The same set of hashes is
> stored in the operating system of every iPhone and iPad user, so
> targeted attacks against only specific individuals are not possible
> under this design. Furthermore, Apple conducts human re- view before
> making a report to NCMEC. In a case where the system identifies photos
> that do not match known CSAM images, the account would not be disabled
> and no report would be filed to NCMEC.
>
> We have faced demands to build and deploy government-mandated changes
> that degrade the privacy of users before, and have steadfastly refused
> those demands. We will continue to refuse them in the future. Let us be
> clear, this technology is limited to detecting CSAM stored in iCloud and
> we will not accede to any government’s request to expand it.
>
> Can non-CSAM images be “injected” into the system to identify ac- counts
> for things other than CSAM?
>
> Our process is designed to prevent that from happening. The set of image
> hashes used for matching are from known, existing images of CSAM that
> have been acquired and validated by at least two child safety
> organizations. Apple does not add to the set of known CSAM image hash-
> es. The same set of hashes is stored in the operating system of every
> iPhone and iPad user, so targeted attacks against only specific
> individuals are not possible under our design. Finally, there is no
> automated reporting to law enforcement, and Apple conducts human review
> before making a report to NCMEC. In the unlikely event of the system
> identifying images that do not match known CSAM images, the account
> would not be disabled and no report would be filed to NCMEC.
>
> Will CSAM detection in iCloud Photos falsely report innocent people to
> law enforcement?
>
> No. The system is designed to be very accurate, and the likelihood that
> the system would incor- rectly identify any given account is less than
> one in one trillion per year. In addition, any time an account is
> identified by the system, Apple conducts human review before making a
> report to NCMEC. As a result, system errors or attacks will not result
> in innocent people being reported to NCMEC.
> ---
>
>

Thank you.

--
Wilf

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> It's telling how the apologists always claim Apple is as bad as Facebook
>> and Google are (and, in this case, far worse).
>
> that's quite the twist.

No, nospam,
It's far too deep for you to comprehend...
Adults should note how prescient my words are below about the apologists...

What's important to note is I've studied the strange apologists for years.
As you know, they only have 7 responses to facts they _hate_ about Apple.

One of those 7 is *apologists _blame anyone but Apple_ for Apple's flaws*.
What the apologists are constantly saying, in effect is:

a. We apologists desperately want to believe Apple's advertisements.
b. But we apologists _hate_ that Apple is _never_ what they claim to be.
c. Hence, we _blame_ everyone but Apple for what Apple turns out to be

Because...
d. *We apologists _hate_ that Apple is no better than Facebook*
Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Amazon, Motorola, etc.
--
Apologists seem to realize they only have 7 responses to facts they hate.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> That's comforting, because the trolls here are definitely *not*
> interested in having a rational, factual discussion about this.

Someone pinch me please...

*Are the apologists finally looking in their own mirrors in desperation*?

Jolly Roger's declaration above _exactly_ summarizes _all_ that he does.

Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> asked
> Thank you.

In other words, the _entire world_ has rather clearly and emphatically told
Apple this is a completely unworkable system of two huge new holes in iOS
that are absolutely sure to be abused by malevolent governments and
malicious hackers...

Meanwhile Apple's _only_ rather impotent response is to ask, nay, beg these
bad actors to please try to refrain from hacking into Apple's poorly thought
out systems... pretty please...

Apple is on their hands and knees, begging to governments:
"Please be nice to us and please don't make laws that we have to follow."

Apple is on all fours, crawling toward and begging to hackers:
"Please don't look at our code because we ourselves don't test any of it."
--
Never forget, there are so many extent zero-day zero-click holes in iOS that
the hackers _stopped_ accepting them (there are too many out there already).

On 2021-09-16, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>> No thanks. Most of Apple's customers don't want Apple to decrypt their
>> data on Apple's servers - and neither does Apple.
>
> And yet decrypt your personal data is what Apple does every single day

Nope, Arlen.

Lies are all you have, loser.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-09-16, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> i do, but other than rod speed, they're usually correct in their facts.
>
> You claim Jolly Roger, who couldn't even earn his high school diploma, is
> always correct in his facts?

That's rich coming from the town idiot.

You clearly don't know a thing about me, old fart. : )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-09-17, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>> That's comforting, because the trolls here are definitely *not*
>> interested in having a rational, factual discussion about this.
>
> Someone pinch me please...

Eww.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR