The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy

Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and photos.

neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
interesting.

Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.

Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists is the
fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the cloud;
it scans users' devices without their consent.

There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.

You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure Apple to
scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.

Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs
without asking."

On 8/7/21 3:05 PM, this is what NewsKrawler wrote:
> The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>
> Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and photos.
>
> neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
> interesting.
>
> Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.
>
> Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists is the
> fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the cloud;
> it scans users' devices without their consent.
>
> There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
> person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.
>
> You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure Apple to
> scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>
> Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
> Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs
> without asking."
>

Snopes doesn't seem to have anything on it nor does factcheck.org
but there are articles that Financial Times leaked the article, if that is credible than go for it.

--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 20.1 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop
Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory, 512G SSD, 750G & 1TB HDDs

On 2021-08-07 12:05 p.m., NewsKrawler wrote:
> The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>
> Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and photos.
>
> neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
> interesting.
>
> Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.
>
> Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists is the
> fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the cloud;
> it scans users' devices without their consent.
>
> There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
> person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.
>
> You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure Apple to
> scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>
> Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
> Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs
> without asking."
>

You should actually try and learn something before you start spewing.

On 2021-08-07 19:05:54 +0000, NewsKrawler said:

> The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>
>
> Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and photos.
>
> neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
> interesting.
>
> Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.
>
> Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists is the
> fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the cloud;
> it scans users' devices without their consent.
>
> There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
> person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.
>
> You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure Apple to
> scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>
> Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
> Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs
> without asking."

More utter crap posted by the conspiracy nutter trolls. :-(

On 07/08/2021 22:45, Your Name wrote:
> On 2021-08-07 19:05:54 +0000, NewsKrawler said:
>
>> The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>>
>>
>> Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and photos.
>>
>> neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
>> interesting.
>>
>> Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.
>>
>> Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists is
>> the
>> fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the
>> cloud;
>> it scans users' devices without their consent.
>>
>> There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
>> person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.
>>
>> You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure
>> Apple to
>> scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>>
>> Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
>> Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs
>> without asking."
>
> More utter crap posted by the conspiracy nutter trolls.   :-(

No, actually, if you'd bothered to follow and read the link you'd
realise that this is potentially a very serious problem. Not many
people would condemn an attempt to curb online child abuse without very
good reasons, those reasons being what could happen next, how such a
system could be expanded, possibly under government pressure, to scan
people's political views, etc. See also:

"Apple criticised for system that detects child abuse"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58124495

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-08-07 3:48 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 07/08/2021 22:45, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2021-08-07 19:05:54 +0000, NewsKrawler said:
>>
>>> The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and
>>> photos.
>>>
>>> neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.
>>>
>>> Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists
>>> is the
>>> fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the
>>> cloud;
>>> it scans users' devices without their consent.
>>>
>>> There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
>>> person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.
>>>
>>> You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure
>>> Apple to
>>> scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>>>
>>> Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
>>> Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs
>>> without asking."
>>
>> More utter crap posted by the conspiracy nutter trolls.   :-(
>
> No, actually, if you'd bothered to follow and read the link you'd
> realise that this is potentially a very serious problem.  Not many
> people would condemn an attempt to curb online child abuse without very
> good reasons, those reasons being what could happen next, how such a
> system could be expanded, possibly under government pressure, to scan
> people's political views, etc.  See also:

No, actually.

It presents precisely no new problems at all.

It is making everyone aware of the fact that governments could order
technology companies to use this kind of technology in nefarious ways...

....but Apple actually doing it for a good purpose has not added any
additional risk AT ALL.

The risk has been there all along.

On 2021-08-07 22:48:05 +0000, Java Jive said:
> On 07/08/2021 22:45, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2021-08-07 19:05:54 +0000, NewsKrawler said:
>>>
>>> The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and photos.
>>>
>>> neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.
>>>
>>> Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists is the
>>> fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the cloud;
>>> it scans users' devices without their consent.
>>>
>>> There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
>>> person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.
>>>
>>> You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure Apple to
>>> scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>>>
>>> Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
>>> Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs
>>> without asking."
>>
>> More utter crap posted by the conspiracy nutter trolls.   :-(
>
> No, actually, if you'd bothered to follow and read the link you'd
> realise that this is potentially a very serious problem. Not many
> people would condemn an attempt to curb online child abuse without very
> good reasons, those reasons being what could happen next, how such a
> system could be expanded, possibly under government pressure, to scan
> people's political views, etc. See also:
>
> "Apple criticised for system that detects child abuse"
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58124495

Yep, as I said, the usual utter crap posted by conspiracy nutter trolls. :-\

On 2021/08/07 9:52 pm, Your Name wrote:
> Yep, as I said, the usual utter crap posted by conspiracy nutter trolls.

Everyone who is reliable is a "nutter" according to this idiot "Your Name."

Reliable media like the New York Times are nutters to this Your Name idiot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-privacy.html

The EFF are all "nutters" according to the idiot named "Your Name."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life

This idiot Your Name called reputable media like The Guardian "nutters."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy

This Your Name idiot called the Washington Post "nutters" too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apple-to-scan-us-phones-for-images-of-child-abuse/2021/08/05/e6c968ac-f61f-11eb-a636-18cac59a98dc_story.html

The idiot Your Name called the LA Times "nutters" for accurate reporting.
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-08-06/apple-says-feature-to-find-child-images-doesnt-create-backdoor

All who reliably reported are "nutters" according to the idiot Your Name.
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On 08/07/2021 10:33 PM, John Robertson wrote:

> The idiot Your Name called the LA Times "nutters" for accurate reporting.
>https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-08-06/apple-says-feature-to-find-child-images-doesnt-create-backdoor

"The company reiterated that it doesn’t scan a device owner’s entire
photo library to look for abusive images but instead uses cryptography
to compare images with a known database provided by the National Center
for Missing & Exploited Children."

I find it difficult to believe that that task can be done without
scanning the entire library -- possibly even the entire phone. And does
it search only for known kiddieporn? As long as the National Center
hasn't seen it it's OK?

The Times (a local newspaper) is no more accurate than any other
fishwrap. Modern reporters seem to have a lot of difficulty with
spelling, grammar, facts and logic.

--
Cheers, Bev
You know how dumb the average person is?
Well, by definition, half are *even dumber*!

On 2021/08/08 12:4 am, The Real Bev wrote:

> I find it difficult to believe that that task can be done without
> scanning the entire library -- possibly even the entire phone.

Apple has declared all iPhone owners are criminals, who deserve no privacy.
Even Edward Snowden called this action turning the iPhone into the "iNarc."

What you need to know is Apple is scanning ON YOUR iPhone!
Nobody else does that.
Only Apple.

Apple puts a cryptic hash ON YOUR iPhone that nobody can't see inside of.
Nobody else does that.
Only Apple.

Apple will also scan all your iMessages for any interesting content.
Why how nice of Apple to do that for you, don't you think?

The question everyone reputable is asking is where does it stop?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists

I think Apple will likely go after those sick gay people next.
After Apple outs all the gay people, they will go after religious nuts.
And then right and left wingers.
Maybe even people who haven't paid their alimony?

Now that Apple has decreed all iPhone owners are criminals, and since all
iPhone owners are criminals no iPhone owner deserves any privacy, where does
it stop?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out.
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out.
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out.
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me.
And there was no one left to speak for me.
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

In article <sens4s$pv7$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-08-06/apple-says-feat
> >ure-to-find-child-images-doesnt-create-backdoor
>
> "The company reiterated that it doesn¹t scan a device owner¹s entire
> photo library to look for abusive images but instead uses cryptography
> to compare images with a known database provided by the National Center
> for Missing & Exploited Children."

yep. that is a correct summary.

> I find it difficult to believe that that task can be done without
> scanning the entire library -- possibly even the entire phone.

believe it. read apple's white paper for the details.

only photos uploaded to icloud are checked via a cryptographic
fingerprint, which also has to meet a certain threshold.

> And does
> it search only for known kiddieporn? As long as the National Center
> hasn't seen it it's OK?

yep, although it doesn't actively search anything. anything the user
chooses to upload to icloud is checked. if it's not uploaded, it's not
checked. it's conceptually quite simple.

> The Times (a local newspaper) is no more accurate than any other
> fishwrap. Modern reporters seem to have a lot of difficulty with
> spelling, grammar, facts and logic.

nowhere near as much as internet trolls and conspiracy nutjobs.

On 2021/08/08 12:15 am, nospam wrote:
> only photos uploaded to icloud are checked via a cryptographic
> fingerprint, which also has to meet a certain threshold.

How can you be so stupid to not know the hash is loaded ON YOUR iPhone?
How can you also be so stupid as to not know the scan is ON YOUR iPhone?
And how can you be so stupid as to not know they can scan iMessages too?
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On 2021-08-07 10:33 p.m., John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/07 9:52 pm, Your Name wrote:
>> Yep, as I said, the usual utter crap posted by conspiracy nutter trolls.
>
> Everyone who is reliable is a "nutter" according to this idiot "Your Name."
>
> Reliable media like the New York Times are nutters to this Your Name idiot.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-privacy.html
>
> The EFF are all "nutters" according to the idiot named "Your Name."
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life
>
>
> This idiot Your Name called reputable media like The Guardian "nutters."
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>
>
> This Your Name idiot called the Washington Post "nutters" too.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apple-to-scan-us-phones-for-images-of-child-abuse/2021/08/05/e6c968ac-f61f-11eb-a636-18cac59a98dc_story.html
>
>
> The idiot Your Name called the LA Times "nutters" for accurate reporting.
> https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-08-06/apple-says-feature-to-find-child-images-doesnt-create-backdoor
>
>
> All who reliably reported are "nutters" according to the idiot Your Name.

Not nutters.

Just lazy reporters.

On 2021-08-08 06:04:10 +0000, The Real Bev said:

> On 08/07/2021 10:33 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>
>> The idiot Your Name called the LA Times "nutters" for accurate reporting.
>> https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-08-06/apple-says-feature-to-find-child-images-doesnt-create-backdoor
>>
>
> "The company reiterated that it doesn’t scan a device owner’s entire
> photo library to look for abusive images but instead uses cryptography
> to compare images with a known database provided by the National Center
> for Missing & Exploited Children."
>
> I find it difficult to believe that that task can be done without
> scanning the entire library -- possibly even the entire phone. And
> does it search only for known kiddieporn? As long as the National
> Center hasn't seen it it's OK?
>
> The Times (a local newspaper) is no more accurate than any other
> fishwrap. Modern reporters seem to have a lot of difficulty with
> spelling, grammar, facts and logic.
>
>
> -- Cheers, Bev
> You know how dumb the average person is?
> Well, by definition, half are *even dumber*!

Please do not reply to the moron trolls. :-(

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-08-07 3:48 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>> On 07/08/2021 22:45, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-07 19:05:54 +0000, NewsKrawler said:
>>>
>>>> The iPhone lost all claims of privacy after iOS15 the Guardian reports.
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apple is about to start poking through all your text messages and
>>>> photos.
>>>>
>>>> neuralMatch scans your photo libraries to see if they contain anything
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Another feature scans all your iMessage images for interesting content.
>>>>
>>>> Of particular concern to security researchers and privacy activists
>>>> is the
>>>> fact that this new feature doesn't just look at images stored on the
>>>> cloud;
>>>> it scans users' devices without their consent.
>>>>
>>>> There's now a wide open and virtually unclosable backdoor into every
>>>> person's iPhone, one which has the potential to grow wider and wider.
>>>>
>>>> You can imagine, for example, how certain countries might pressure
>>>> Apple to
>>>> scan for anti-government messages or LGBTQ content.
>>>>
>>>> Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this,
>>>> Snowden tweeted. "Apple turned a trillion dollars of devices into
>>>> iNarcs
>>>> without asking."
>>>
>>> More utter crap posted by the conspiracy nutter trolls. :-(
>>
>> No, actually, if you'd bothered to follow and read the link you'd
>> realise that this is potentially a very serious problem. Not many
>> people would condemn an attempt to curb online child abuse without
>> very good reasons, those reasons being what could happen next, how
>> such a system could be expanded, possibly under government pressure,
>> to scan people's political views, etc. See also:
>
> No, actually.
>
> It presents precisely no new problems at all.
>
> It is making everyone aware of the fact that governments could order
> technology companies to use this kind of technology in nefarious ways...
>
> ...but Apple actually doing it for a good purpose has not added any
> additional risk AT ALL.
>
> The risk has been there all along.

It's easier to make a FISA court request, if you know
the rails are greased and ready to go. We're not talking
about tricky things like designing new silicon or
making changes to an OS. Just stick in the hash on a doc
some leaker released, and track them down like a dog.
The hash pops up like toast in a toaster. Sweet.
This really is risky.

The FISA court has no scruples, and neither do the people
in government, either party, when it comes to this kind of power.

And it's even meme-worthy, a new power grab complete with
a "think of the children".

If there was an actual rule of law in the country, it
might be different.

Imagine if we were reduced to phones, that only made
phone calls. I'd better talk to my broker about
a position in a flip-phone company.

Paul

Am 08.08.21 um 08:15 schrieb nospam:
> nowhere near as much as internet trolls and conspiracy nutjobs.

The whole story is already ways beyond the facts. Opinons are made.
We are observers how Apple is comitting commercial suicide and is
destroying its reputation. The shares are a safe short.

Sorry to say but this is the beginning of the end.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 08/08/2021 08:11, Your Name wrote:
>
> Please do not reply to the moron trolls.  :-(

The fact remains that this *is* a potential issue, and you are the moron
troll here. So, fair enough, I'm sure most here will be happy to ignore
you at your own request !!!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/08/2021 00:46, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> On 2021-08-07 3:48 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> No, actually, if you'd bothered to follow and read the link you'd
>> realise that this is potentially a very serious problem.  Not many
>> people would condemn an attempt to curb online child abuse without
>> very good reasons, those reasons being what could happen next, how
>> such a system could be expanded, possibly under government pressure,
>> to scan people's political views, etc.  See also:
>
> No, actually.
>
> It presents precisely no new problems at all.
>
> It is making everyone aware of the fact that governments could order
> technology companies to use this kind of technology in nefarious ways...
>
> ....but Apple actually doing it for a good purpose has not added any
> additional risk AT ALL.
>
> The risk has been there all along.

Well, yes, and no. Technically I suppose you are correct, but the risk
is low as long as the technology hasn't been implemented on a phone to
do it. This is implementing that technology and making it part of the
OS, and thus massively increasing the risk that it will be misused.

So while you might be technically correct to say that the risk has been
there all along, and this is just inaccurate reporting and hype, the
fact remains that this is a new, significant, and serious increase in
the risk, and thus you are unwisely downplaying it by your remarks.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote

| > The risk has been there all along.
| | Well, yes, and no.

Alan Baker is another rabid AppleSeed, like nospam.
There's no point discussing with him.

"John Robertson" <spam@flippers.com> wrote

|
| Everyone who is reliable is a "nutter" according to this idiot "Your
Name."
| | Reliable media like the New York Times are nutters to this Your Name
idiot.
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-privacy.html
|

Actually, I'd trust NYTimes less than most. The most thorough
technical info I found was on DailyMail. People like to make fun
of them for their thong photos and love of scandal, but they get
the news and they generally get it right. The EFF article was a
good presentation of implications.

The NYTimes article, by contrast, was a good example of their
usual pro-business sleaze. They use misleading wording to make
it sound like the scanning is done on the server. With children's
phones they say it's on the phone. With other photo's it says they
will "spot [child porn] images... that users upload to Apple�s iCloud
storage service". It's typical NYT. It doesn't lie outright, but it
does mislead the reader in favor of business customers.

Someone yesterday pointed out an aspect that I hadn't thought
of: You have a 15 year old kid. They have a boyfriend or girlfriend.
The kids are having sex. They send each other nude photos. You're
getting copies but allow it to continue and don't report it to the
police... Can you be indicted for running a child porn operation?
What about the kids? Can they both be arrested? This is not
farfetched. I once knew of a young man who had a girlfriend
across state lines. I think he was 16 and she was 15. In one state
it was legal. In the other he was a rapist. They had a child, but
due to current anti-sex mania he couldn't declare himself the father
for fear of statutory rape prosecution!

We can get into all sorts of greater complications when spyware
tech companies are allowed to play Sherlock Holmes while throwing
out the 4th amendment. Apple only care about their carefully
marketted public image. And they've already shown thmselves
incompetent with their ridiculous claim that there can only be
one in a trillion false positives. Does anybody imagine that if
someone gets falsely accused, Timmy Cook is going to appear
in court and say, "Sorry, it turns out our software is crap." ?

In article <seoikm$10b$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Actually, I'd trust NYTimes less than most. The most thorough
> technical info I found was on DailyMail.

the daily mail?? you must be joking.

if you're actually interested in technical info, then read apple's
white paper on exactly how it works.

unfortunately, you're not interested in such details.

> Someone yesterday pointed out an aspect that I hadn't thought
> of: You have a 15 year old kid. They have a boyfriend or girlfriend.
> The kids are having sex. They send each other nude photos. You're
> getting copies but allow it to continue and don't report it to the
> police... Can you be indicted for running a child porn operation?

it doesn't work that way.

parents must explicitly opt-in to checking for inappropriate content in
text messages for their kids who are 12 years old or younger, and only
the parents are alerted. apple is not involved, nor is law enforcement.

teenagers can voluntarily choose to be warned of inappropriate content,
and if they do, their parents are *not* notified nor do their parents
have the option to be warned even if they wanted to. only the teenager
gets the warning.

thus, for your example of two horny 15 year olds sending naked pix to
each other, their parents will not find out unless they send it to
their parents by mistake.

> What about the kids? Can they both be arrested? This is not
> farfetched.

yes it is very far fetched, because it's completely wrong.

> I once knew of a young man who had a girlfriend
> across state lines. I think he was 16 and she was 15. In one state
> it was legal. In the other he was a rapist. They had a child, but
> due to current anti-sex mania he couldn't declare himself the father
> for fear of statutory rape prosecution!

interesting story, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
what's being discussed.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> if you're actually interested in technical info, then read apple's
> white paper on exactly how it works.

You mean the white papers written by the clever Apple marketing team?
The ones that claim everyone secretly throttles & changes release notes?
Those white papers which completely misrepresent the truth by omission?

All they need to say is the scanning is done on YOUR phone.
Of YOUR images. Of YOUR iMessages. Without your consent.

All it needs to say is Apple exercises zero control over the list.
And that the list can grow to include ANYTHING anyone with money wants.

You don't think money talks to Apple?
Who is Apple's largest single customer?

Apple does whatever that customer tells Apple to do.

Bears <Bears@invalid.com> asked
> Snopes doesn't seem to have anything on it

Snopes has a very short summary which doesn't say all that much about it.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/apple-child-sexual-abuse-iphones/

Given Apple doesn't test their software for bugs, this one will be abused.
(The number of zero day holes in iPhones is so huge hackers stopped
accepting them because they don't need any more holes in iOS at this point.)

Keep in mind the Apple iCloud is not encrypted end to end even though Apple
says it is (but Apple has the keys so it is an empty promise (aka a lie).

Instead of scanning images in the cloud the iPhone itself will perform that
scan of the photos on the device turning each iPhone into an iNarc device.

Any number of scans can be performed with no impact to Apple servers.
Apple doesn't control the input file. It's handed to them by anyone.

Apple imposes zero oversight on who hands them what file (money talks).
False positives will occur which you can arbitrate with the government.

Apple accepts the input file from anyone who has money (think China).
There are no limits on where Apple gets the input data.
There is no size limit on the input file.
There is no limit on what files are scanned using that input file.

Given Apple's track record with too many zero day flaws in both their chips
and their iOS software, what could possibly go wrong with this new feature?

"Robin Goodfellow" <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote

| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked

| > if you're actually interested in technical info, then read apple's
| > white paper on exactly how it works.
| | You mean the white papers written by the clever Apple marketing team?

I expect he probably means this one:

http://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Apple_PSI_System_Security_Protocol_and_Analysis.pdf

The official explanation of the scanning operation, understandable
only by advanced computer engineers. I write software on Windows
but I have no idea how to read these formulae. As usual, nospam
employs red herrings and lack of actual information to make it sound
like he might possibly have the slightest idea what he's talking about.

But he never does. He's simply an arguing machine. In fact, nospam's
posts are so deceptive, predictable and lacking in factual accountability
that I've wondered whether nospam might actually be part of some
weird Stanford research to perfect AI chatbots. They may be trying
to write software that will cause the reader to believe whatever is
claimed. Think of the marketing possibilities! :)

At any rate, I've blocked nospam for years. It's pointless to discuss
with him. He'll only turn the topic progressively more murky. I only
saw his comment because you answered him.

In article <seorur$ar8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> > if you're actually interested in technical info, then read apple's
> > white paper on exactly how it works.
>
> You mean the white papers written by the clever Apple marketing team?

white papers are written by engineering teams, *not* marketing teams.

you've obviously never written any white papers, or read them for that
matter.

> The ones that claim everyone secretly throttles & changes release notes?

hi arlen.