Yes, they have "analysts" looking at all of our photos. And that's how the CSAM detection worked also, you totally nailed it bro.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS 17 Can Automatically Block Unsolicited Nude Photos With 'Sensitive Content Warnings'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Allright team, we need everyone to send in ****picks to our AI team by friday. Look, it's complicated, it's for the children!
Last edited:
A secure hashing algorithm should produce a totally different hash if even one pixel is modified, which would make circumventing that system trivial. To work around that, Apple’s system (and others) apply some fuzzing to help “undo” modifications. That fuzzing inherently also increases the likelihood of hash collisions, where two different images produce the same hash.
The consequences of a hash collision are, of course, pretty dire in this specific case. Even an account being flagged for review could mean massive headaches if the person was innocent. Apple tried to design around this by requiring manual review and requiring a number of matches before that review would occur, but that doesn’t fix the unrelated issue of who controls the hash databases.
Apple was going to require a hash to be present in multiple databases, but as we’ve seen recently with Russia and Belarus for example, it’s possible for a state to develop so much influence over its region that it effectively has puppet states…and it’s not like Russia’s government at this time is particularly known for its love of freedom of expression. So what then, does an oppressive government with puppet states tell Apple to add its preferred hashes or ban Apple imports? This leaves the system vulnerable to abuse against innocent people for reasons completely unrelated to CSAM.
That’s what the issue was.
Did you see that guy playing the triple neck guitar? Because I think there's your answer.
🙄. The feature you are lying about is analyzed on device, and apple never planned to have the child one analyzed by a third party either. The third party would have simply provided a database of known hashes for your own device to compare and detect those images.
No, I do not. Setting aside whether cops are humans (they aren't), I do not want ANYONE able to "verify" ANYTHING on anyone's device without the user's permission. That's why we were so upset about the whole "but think of the children" excuse Apple tried to use with the whole plan to have our devices report ANYTHING to ANYONE. Today it's kiddy porn, tomorrow it's criticism of the government.
If this feature is truly isolated on-device with appropriate safeguards to be sure it's not sending anything off-device, it's mostly harmless. I'd still rather not have any image analysis going on without me explicitly initiating it on a specific image, whether that means a weenie detector or face detector.
At some point someone has to be trusted to check for this stuff, or we just have to live with CSAM.
Someone didn’t see all processing done on device. Do you have any reading comprehension?
Imagine the poor souls that had to work and develop this technology and do all kinds of testing... lmao
Because it's rare for a guy to receive unsolicited nudie pics of women.😉
There was that one time I was patching my roof after hurricane Ike. I received some unsolicited MMS stating, "Hot shingles in your area needing to be laid." and "Hot shingles within 5 miles looking to get nailed."😅
So customers pay for devices, pay for the energy to charge the devices, but Apple can usurp that device again in the name of protection, but again its ON DEVICE where Apple has no right to act as arbiter. I'm involved in sensitive work and I would not be allowed to use Apple devices if APPLE can interrogate my device. There have been so many instances where so called optional functions have proven to operate in any event. How many companies have been fined for mis using customers data, but in this case its worse. Its selling you a device, then expecting you to pay for the energy to charge your device, utilise function that must affect performance. This may not be CSAM in name, but the principle is the same. SURVEILLANCE ON DEVICE. NO NO NO Apple.
Just a cursory look at how many times Apple have been fined over privacy. Its no good talking the talk if then they don't walk the walk.
Its the same slippery slope that industry experts condemned Apple for in the CSAM ON DEVICE surveillance, and it is the facts its ON DEVICE that makes it that slippery slope.
Of course they can check whatever they like on their own servers, but usurping users purchased Apple devices is not on. We've already seen how Apple acquiesce to China's demands in certain situations. The same is true with US agencies who cry out for a backdoor and this is the slipper slope to give one.
Anyone who suggests Apple have never been in breach of rules only has to do a cursory check. They are by no means the worst, but this is the slipper slope...again in the guise of protection, but it flies in the face of Apple's own comments on privacy. Don't be fooled by it being an option, as we've seen in the past how optional functions did not even have to be switched on by users.
France fines Apple over App Store ad targeting ePrivacy breach
France's data protection watchdog has hit the iPhone maker with a fine of €8M for not obtaining mobile users' consent to its ad targeting.
guce.techcrunch.com
Why Italy Just Fined Apple, Of All Companies, Over Privacy
One of the key problems, according to Italy’s competition authority, is that Apple is forcing iPhone owners to use a non-optional Apple ID that is tied to ad targeting without disclosure.
www.forbes.com
Apple has been fined $11M for misuse of customer data in Italy - 9to5Mac
Apple has been fined €10M ($11.3M) in Italy for what competition authorities say is the misuse of customer data. Google has been fined ...
9to5mac.com
Apple faces privacy case in Europe over iPhone tracking ID
Tool that lets advertisers track users created without consent, says activist Max Schrems
Apple, Sephora settlements shine light on data privacy | TechTarget
As companies including Apple and Sephora settle data privacy lawsuits, businesses need to assess their own data privacy practices, experts say.
Apple continues to collect iPhone user data regardless of privacy settings, lawsuit alleges
A new lawsuit alleges that Apple continues to collect user data in stock iPhone apps even when users have opted out of data tracking. This tracking contradicts assurances that Apple safeguards user privacy and can completely disable any kind of data collection in Apple's apps.
Last edited:
Stop caring so much about it, and just find a dumb phone to use. That's what I'm going to do soon. I've seen enough now to know where this is all going. So I'm checking out. Done and done.So customers pay for devices, pay for the energy to charge the devices, but Apple can usurp that device again in the name of protection, but again its ON DEVICE where Apple has no right to act as arbiter. I'm involved in sensitive work and I would not be allowed to use Apple devices if APPLE can interrogate my device. There have been so many instances where so called optional functions have proven to operate in any event. How many companies have been fined for mis using customers data, but in this case its worse. Its selling you a device, then expecting you to pay for the energy to charge your device, utilise function that must affect performance. This may not be CSAM in name, but the principle is the same. SURVEILLANCE ON DEVICE. NO NO NO Apple.
Just a cursory look at how many times Apple have been fined over privacy. Its no good talking the talk if then they don't walk the walk.
Its the same slippery slope that industry experts condemned Apple for in the CSAM ON DEVICE surveillance, and it is the facts its ON DEVICE that makes it that slippery slope.
Of course they can check whatever they like on their own servers, but usurping users purchased Apple devices is not on. We've already seen how Apple acquiesce to China's demands in certain situations. The same is true with US agencies who cry out for a backdoor and this is the slipper slope to give one.
Anyone who suggests Apple have never been in breach of rules only has to do a cursory check. They are by no means the worst, but this is the slipper slope...again in the guise of protection, but it flies in the face of Apple's own comments on privacy. Don't be fooled by it being an option, as we've seen in the past how optional functions did not even have to be switched on by users.
France fines Apple over App Store ad targeting ePrivacy breach
France's data protection watchdog has hit the iPhone maker with a fine of €8M for not obtaining mobile users' consent to its ad targeting.
Why Italy Just Fined Apple, Of All Companies, Over Privacy
One of the key problems, according to Italy’s competition authority, is that Apple is forcing iPhone owners to use a non-optional Apple ID that is tied to ad targeting without disclosure.
Apple has been fined $11M for misuse of customer data in Italy - 9to5Mac
Apple has been fined €10M ($11.3M) in Italy for what competition authorities say is the misuse of customer data. Google has been fined ...
Apple faces privacy case in Europe over iPhone tracking ID
Tool that lets advertisers track users created without consent, says activist Max Schremswww.theguardian.com
Apple, Sephora settlements shine light on data privacy | TechTarget
As companies including Apple and Sephora settle data privacy lawsuits, businesses need to assess their own data privacy practices, experts say.www.techtarget.com
Apple continues to collect iPhone user data regardless of privacy settings, lawsuit alleges
A new lawsuit alleges that Apple continues to collect user data in stock iPhone apps even when users have opted out of data tracking. This tracking contradicts assurances that Apple safeguards user privacy and can completely disable any kind of data collection in Apple's apps.www.notebookcheck.net
You have misunderstood how the CSAM Detection System worked.
It was exceptional bad at discovering nudity or pornography in general.