On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:160920211452157119%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> go learn about how it actually works

Why do you think malevolent governments and malware writers care how Apple
can only hope it works?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:160920211452126928%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).

You keep repeating you feel these new back doors aren't really back doors.

Yet Apple put on hold their plans to implement these new iPhone back doors.

Why do you think Apple did that?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <nf5ajfbfm3tz.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
> <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
>>
>> How do you opt out of malware code & government use of the new back doors?
>
> what part of there is no backdoor is unclear?
>
> did you even read the white papers? (no, you didn't).
> do you know what a backdoor is? (no, you don't).
> are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).
>

So you are saying there is no way in hell this new csam scanning proposal
could ever be used nefariously by anyone?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <si02lp$h52$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The best approach is to not open a backdoor in the first place,
>
> exactly why apple didn't do that.
>
>
>
>>
>> Apple took the right approach by backing down and respecting the views
>> of human rights advocates, privacy advocates, child-protection
>> advocates, and others, in "delaying" this whole thing.
>
> that's a gross misrepresentation of what happened.
>
>> Hopefully, as
>> everyone expects, the "delay" will turn into forever, at least in terms
>> of on-device scanning.
>
> thereby making iphones the ideal platform for sexual predators.
>
> maybe that's why you're so against it.
>
>> What Apple does on their servers, to users'
>> iClould storage, is another story entirely.
>
> apple's csam is *only* for photos uploaded to icloud.
>
> whether those photos are checked before they're sent or upon its
> arrival is an implementation detail to prevent apple from seeing
> non-csam photos, thereby guaranteeing the user's privacy.
>

How do you select only the photos you want uploaded to iCloud? As far as I
know it’s all or nothing.

On 2021-09-16, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 10:40 AM, Wilf wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> 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?
>
> That's one of, but not the only, objection to this back door (or
> whatever anyone wants to call it). And the question is not "could a
> malevolent government insist...?," it's a virtual certainty that they
> would insist.

They can insist all they want, but that doesn't mean they would succeed.
And even if someone did succeed in injecting non-Child Sexual Abuse
Material into the database, the Apple employees who verify the potential
matching visual derivatives enclosed in the secure safety vouchers would
instantly see that the potential matches were not in fact CSAM, which
would expose the fact that the database was tainted, and Apple is under
no obligation to forward non-CSAM photos to anyone, and Apple has stated
this in plain English: "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." and "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."

> Would Apple cave if such a government insisted is the real question.

The answer is "no". Again, Apple has stated this in plain English: "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."

Your trolls are lame.

--
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 Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:160920211452116867%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> stock up on the tin foil. you are running low.

What do you know that many experts at the EFF & elsewhere don't know?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<news:160920211410457746%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>> And the question is not "could a
>>> malevolent government insist...?," it's a virtual certainty that they
>>> would insist.
>>
>> they might insist, but the question is will they succeed.
>>
>> the answer is a resounding no.
>
> Why then did Apple say they follow all the laws everywhere iPhones are sold?

Get back to us when you can provide a reference to any law states that
Apple must report non-CSAM to authorities.

--
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:160920211425149884%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>> Why then did Apple say they follow all the laws everywhere iPhones are sold?
>>
>> they do.
>
> Then Apple isn't going to say no to governments who expand these back doors

There is no back door.

There is no law you can point to which states Apple must report non-CSAM
to authorites.

You're just blowing hot air.

> Ron, the humblest guy in town.

Not humble enough, just spreading FUD.

--
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, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 11:22 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
>> (in article<news:160920211410457746%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>>>> And the question is not "could a
>>>> malevolent government insist...?," it's a virtual certainty that they
>>>> would insist.
>>>
>>> they might insist, but the question is will they succeed.
>>>
>>> the answer is a resounding no.
>>
>> Why then did Apple say they follow all the laws everywhere iPhones are sold?
>>
>> Is Apple now going to say a "resounding no" to the laws of those countries?
>
> Based on the past, the answer is that it's likely that Apple would
> comply with the insistence of a government

Nope, in fact Apple is on record refusing similar requests.

--
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, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <p8flgfea8xm5$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
><ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Apple can't control malware & government coders who open these back doors.
>
> there aren't any backdoors to open.
>
> seriously, read the white papers and learn what a backdoor actually is
> before you go throwing around words you don't understand.

Ron isn't interested in facts or rational discussion. He only wants to
spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. He's trolling.

--
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, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
> On 16/09/2021 at 10:39, Wilf 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"? What
>> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
>> "back door"? TIA.
>
> Very helpful and interesting responses, thank you all. And, yes, it was
> a genuine query.

Welcome.

--
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, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article<news:iqh9l9F84bcU1@mid.individual.net>):
>> Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
>
> How do you opt out of malware code

There is no malware code involved here, dimwit troll. But you know that.
You're just flailing around lying to troll, because lies are all you
have. You're just repeating bullshit you've read at this point out of
pure fear. And it's frankly embarrassing how gullible and foolish you
fear-driven idiots are.

> Ron, the dimmest guy in town.

Indeed.

--
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 <w2410cf3eope.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> > read the white papers on how it actually works
>
> The reason for the emergency white papers

there weren't any emergency white papers.

> was for Apple to explain to a
> sceptical world how Apple hopes it would work.

nope, it was to be fully transparent about how it actually *does* work.

the entire system is designed so it can be audited, something that
*can't* be done with server-side scanning.

> Governments and malware writers will read Apple's white papers to learn how
> Apple expects the software to be used.
>
> But why do you think malware writers & governments will care what Apple can
> only wish they'd do?

stop babbling about things you clearly do not understand at all.

In article <moj3dc6ooco1$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> Apple wrote the emergency white papers to try to calm down a sceptical
> world.

nope. the white papers were written *before* announcing it.

they did add an faq to clarify things for those who didn't want to read
about neural hashes and vouchers and the rest of the gory details.
unfortunately, nobody bothered to read that either.

In article <si04bc$t4q$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> Maybe a 'Front Door'? But
> >>> it could allow governments to insist that other hashes be included in
> >>> the database used to identify offending pictures.
> >>
> >> multiple governments would need to conspire against the same images
> >> (good luck getting multiple governments to agree on anything) *and* get
> >> the manual review team to go along with it.
> >>
> >> <https://i1.wp.com/9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/08/Screen-
> >> Shot-2021-08-13-at-2.01.20-PM.jpeg>
> >>
> >
> > Thank you, that does make sense.
> >
>
> Except it doesn¹t when considering Islamic countries who find the very same
> things objectionable under their Sharia law.

you're missing the multiple agency part.

> And it doesn¹t even have to
> be images, how long before it gets expanded to keywords?

how exactly does someone upload a keyword to icloud?

> The iMessage
> scanning has the potential to be the one focused on by governments.

imessage scanning is opt-in, only for kids, and it only alerts the
parents. nobody else.

governments along with apple itself have *no* way of knowing if it has
been enabled, and if so, if any alerts have been sent to the parents.

it's entirely within the family, so that the parents can handle it as
they deem appropriate for their own kids. different parents will have
different ideas on what to do about it.

In article <si04l5$v6o$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
> >>
> >> How do you opt out of malware code & government use of the new back doors?
> >
> > what part of there is no backdoor is unclear?
> >
> > did you even read the white papers? (no, you didn't).
> > do you know what a backdoor is? (no, you don't).
> > are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).
> >
>
> So you are saying there is no way in hell this new csam scanning proposal
> could ever be used nefariously by anyone?

nothing is 100% perfect so it can't be described as 'no way in hell',
but the number of obstacles to overcome is extraordinarily high to be
able to do it.

In article <1wqfrmubppsh3.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:

>
> What do you know that many experts at the EFF & elsewhere don't know?

how it actually works.

On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<news:160920211452116867%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>> stock up on the tin foil. you are running low.
>
> What do you know that many experts at the EFF & elsewhere don't know?

How to recognize disinformation, for one. That's a skill you are sorely
lacking, dimwit.

--
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

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <nf5ajfbfm3tz.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
> <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
>>
>> How do you opt out of malware code & government use of the new back doors?
>
> what part of there is no backdoor is unclear?
>
> did you even read the white papers? (no, you didn't).
> do you know what a backdoor is? (no, you don't).
> are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).
>

Unfortunately perception is 90% of reality and in this case the public and
security experts perceive this as a potential back door. Your constant
denials won’t change that perception and only sound like damage control.

On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<news:160920211452126928%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>> are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).
>
> You keep repeating you feel these new back doors aren't really back doors.

You fear-driven dimwits project constantly, This has nothing to do with
feelings, and everything to do with the FACT that this isn't a backdoor
by definition. Your fear-based reactivity doesn't care about facts, but
facts don't care about your feelings either. You're just showing the
world what a gullible fool you really are here.

> Ron, the most foolish guy in town.

Indeed.

--
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, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <nf5ajfbfm3tz.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
>> <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
>>>
>>> How do you opt out of malware code & government use of the new back doors?
>>
>> what part of there is no backdoor is unclear?
>>
>> did you even read the white papers? (no, you didn't).
>> do you know what a backdoor is? (no, you don't).
>> are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).
>
> So you are saying there is no way in hell this new csam scanning proposal
> could ever be used nefariously by anyone?

You and your butt buddy trolls have yet to provide any realistic
explanation of how it could. Until you do, you're assumed to be blowing
hot air.

--
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 Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<news:160920211519254894%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
> they did add an faq to clarify things

Why do you think governments and malware writers care what Apple wishes?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 16, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article<news:iqhj1lF9rulU3@mid.individual.net>):
> The answer is "no".

What makes you think malware writers care what Apple wishes they'd do?
And didn't Apple say they will follow all the laws where iPhones are sold?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sep 16, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article<news:iqhj7uF9rulU6@mid.individual.net>):
> Apple is on record refusing similar requests.

Apple is on record confirming they always comply with all laws.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <si04l5$v6o$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Since these are all optional services, opting out is very easy to do.
>>>>
>>>> How do you opt out of malware code & government use of the new back doors?
>>>
>>> what part of there is no backdoor is unclear?
>>>
>>> did you even read the white papers? (no, you didn't).
>>> do you know what a backdoor is? (no, you don't).
>>> are you going to keep repeating the same bullshit? (yes, you are).
>>>
>>
>> So you are saying there is no way in hell this new csam scanning proposal
>> could ever be used nefariously by anyone?
>
> nothing is 100% perfect so it can't be described as 'no way in hell',
> but the number of obstacles to overcome is extraordinarily high to be
> able to do it.
>

So then why do it? No one wants it but Apple. 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.