• V14.8 released!

    From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to sms on Thu Sep 16 19:08:37 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 11:09:04 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 19:10:14 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 19:11:17 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 19:13:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to sms on Thu Sep 16 19:11:58 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Wilf on Thu Sep 16 19:13:52 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 19:18:00 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Thu Sep 16 15:19:24 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com on Thu Sep 16 15:19:26 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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 doesnt when considering Islamic countries who find the very same things objectionable under their Sharia law.

    you're missing the multiple agency part.

    And it doesnt 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 19:20:36 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From badgolferman@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 19:21:57 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 19:22:48 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Thu Sep 16 19:23:50 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 11:24:38 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Thu Sep 16 11:29:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Thu Sep 16 11:46:01 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From badgolferman@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 19:51:29 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com on Thu Sep 16 15:51:52 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si05gl$62t$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

    Unfortunately perception is 90% of reality and in this case the public and security experts perceive this as a potential back door.

    perception of a backdoor does not make it one.

    'backdoor' is linkbait and gets the clicks so it gets used.

    unfortunately, people believe the linkbait headlines and soundbites
    without bothering to do their own investigation on the actual details.

    this is not limited to just apple csam either.

    people believe all sorts of things they read online or elsewhere that
    aren't true.

    Your constant
    denials wont change that perception and only sound like damage control.

    it's not denials or damage control. it's to stop the deliberate spread
    of disinformation.

    myself and others have repeatedly pointed people at the white papers,
    linked them directly and explained various details about it, along with
    what a backdoor actually is and why this isn't one.

    the information is out there, and has been all along.

    if there's any denials, it's from those who deny what the facts
    actually are.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Thu Sep 16 15:51:53 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <88or47y7wywc.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

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

    as any ethical company should be.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 19:54:46 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    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

    Whether they care or not is irrelevant, since there are measures in
    place that prevent tampering. But you're not interested in that, because
    you are fear-driven and only want to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
    (FUD). You aren't interested in any rational, fact-based discussion. You
    are only interested in reactionary claims based on your feelings. You're
    a gullible fool.

    Ron, the most gullible fearful fool 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 19:55:56 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-16, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    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 is on record not being able to provide a single reference to any law stating that Apple must report non-Child Sexual Abuse Material to
    authorities of any country.

    Ron, the biggest dipshit troll in town.

    Yes.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 11:56:52 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:160920211551531792%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    Apple is on record confirming they always comply with all laws.

    as any ethical company should be.

    Then let's hope this "on hold" decision by Apple becomes permanent.

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com on Thu Sep 16 15:59:59 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si0781$i3a$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

    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?

    unfortunately, there are sexual predators in this world

    No one wants it but Apple.

    no one wants to remove sexual predators from society? really?? is that
    your claim?

    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.

    with apple's proposed system, there are multiple stages where any
    changes as to what's going on would be detected.

    put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for someone
    to use it for nefarious purposes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Thu Sep 16 16:00:00 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <6fl5r9huslhl$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

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

    as any ethical company should be.

    Then let's hope this "on hold" decision by Apple becomes permanent.

    you hope that sexual predators will have a platform they can use
    without being caught?

    maybe you and sms can send photos to each other.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Thu Sep 16 20:00:44 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-16, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
    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?

    Why aren't you asking why Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and
    others have been doing it for the past decade? Peculiar...

    No one wants it but Apple.

    Liar. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others have been
    scanning their user's photos, email, and so on for CSAM for a decade or
    more. And most people agree that child abusers and people who enable
    them by downloading, storing, and trading Child Sexual Abuse Material
    should be prosecuted.

    Do your csam scanning on iCloud just like everyone else.

    No thanks. Most of Apple's customers don't want Apple to access their
    iCLoud data on Apple's servers, nor does Apple want to.

    There will be a lot less outrage

    The primary sources of outrage are from gullible idiots and biased organizations attempting to cash in on negative publicity. And
    protecting children isn't something we should stop doing just because a
    few gullible idiots are "outraged" by it anyway.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 12:01:51 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 20:02:27 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-16, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si05gl$62t$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
    <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

    Unfortunately perception is 90% of reality and in this case the
    public and security experts perceive this as a potential back door.

    perception of a backdoor does not make it one.

    These idiots can't get past their perceptions because they are
    reactionary idiots who are quite literally driven by their own fears and insecurities.

    if there's any denials, it's from those who deny what the facts
    actually are.

    Their feelings don't care about facts. ; )

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 12:09:29 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:160920211551521720%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    the information is out there, and has been all along.

    Why do you think Apple put this on hold if there are no problems with it?
    What else does Apple need to do before it can be put back into effect?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Thu Sep 16 16:10:09 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <15orxnhbzhyn7$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    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 i don't need to grift off of it.

    the eff is pushing their propaganda story to gain popularity and
    donations. it's that simple.

    getting donations is the reason a lot of frivolous lawsuits have been
    filed about all sorts of things, what many call lolsuits because
    they're so laughably stupid even to non-lawyers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 12:12:02 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:160920211559590937%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for someone
    to use it for nefarious purposes.

    Why do you think Apple put this on hold if there are no problems with it?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Thu Sep 16 12:13:15 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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 before it can be put back into effect?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Thu Sep 16 16:13:16 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <blng3amyf8jc$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:


    Why do you think Apple put this on hold if there are no problems with it?

    because there are a lot of very vocal people with an agenda pushing disinformation for their own gains.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From badgolferman@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 20:24:17 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si0781$i3a$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

    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?

    unfortunately, there are sexual predators in this world

    No one wants it but Apple.

    no one wants to remove sexual predators from society? really?? is that
    your claim?

    No one wants that system on their personal devices.

    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.

    with apple's proposed system, there are multiple stages where any
    changes as to what's going on would be detected.

    put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for someone
    to use it for nefarious purposes.


    It’s basically the same thing as turning on the camera and microphone to
    look in on your private matters. It’s an unauthorized scan of your personal device.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 12:16:27 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 12:19:24 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 16, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:160920211613168730%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    Why do you think Apple put this on hold if there are no problems with it?

    because there are a lot of very vocal people with an agenda pushing disinformation for their own gains.

    Why were there hundreds of privacy organizations against what Apple did?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com on Thu Sep 16 16:39:13 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si095h$101$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:


    No one wants it but Apple.

    no one wants to remove sexual predators from society? really?? is that
    your claim?

    No one wants that system on their personal devices.

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

    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.

    that's the system you want?

    with apple's proposed system, there are multiple stages where any
    changes as to what's going on would be detected.

    ^this^

    put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for someone
    to use it for nefarious purposes.


    Its basically the same thing as turning on the camera and microphone to
    look in on your private matters. Its an unauthorized scan of your personal device.

    no, it's nothing at all like that.

    only photos uploaded to icloud are checked.

    photos not uploaded are never checked.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Thu Sep 16 16:39:14 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <1n7xjkh166p6u.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:


    Why were there hundreds of privacy organizations against what Apple did?

    there weren't 'hundreds'.

    there were a few very vocal complaints based on a deep misunderstanding
    of the facts, and in some cases deliberately so to raise money.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Thu Sep 16 13:46:36 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/16/2021 12:21 PM, badgolferman wrote:

    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.

    nospam is wrong of course™.

    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."

    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."

    "When ignorance screams, intelligence shuts up" <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/story-donkey-tiger-akhilesh-sengar/>.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Thu Sep 16 13:49:17 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/16/2021 12:51 PM, badgolferman wrote:

    <snip>

    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.

    And of course, as we all know, that is almost certainly going to be the
    end result of this whole unfortunate episode. We'll see a statement
    about how some amazing new discovery now enables the CSAM scanning to
    occur on iCloud and no longer requires on-device scanning.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 13:52:58 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/16/2021 1:01 PM, RonTheGuy 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?

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From badgolferman@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 20:49:36 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si095h$101$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:


    No one wants it but Apple.

    no one wants to remove sexual predators from society? really?? is that
    your claim?

    No one wants that system on their personal devices.

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

    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.

    It’s still better than invading my personal device.

    that's the system you want?

    with apple's proposed system, there are multiple stages where any
    changes as to what's going on would be detected.

    ^this^

    put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for someone
    to use it for nefarious purposes.


    It¹s basically the same thing as turning on the camera and microphone to
    look in on your private matters. It¹s an unauthorized scan of your personal >> device.

    no, it's nothing at all like that.

    only photos uploaded to icloud are checked.

    photos not uploaded are never checked.


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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Thu Sep 16 20:54:10 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-16, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si0781$i3a$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
    <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

    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?

    unfortunately, there are sexual predators in this world

    No one wants it but Apple.

    no one wants to remove sexual predators from society? really?? is
    that your claim?

    No one wants that system on their personal devices.

    Wrong. There are people who have no problem with the matching being done
    on their device in a way that protects their privacy, just like there
    are people who have no problem with companies scanning their data
    directly on their servers in the cloud instead. You're just *desperate*
    to ignore anything that doesn't fit your biased view, because you are a fear-driven reactionary..

    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

    No.

    with apple's proposed system, there are multiple stages where any
    changes as to what's going on would be detected.

    put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for
    someone to use it for nefarious purposes.

    It’s basically the same thing as turning on the camera and microphone
    to look in on your private matters

    No.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 20:55:09 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 20:56:21 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Thu Sep 16 20:57:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Thu Sep 16 16:59:26 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Thu Sep 16 21:00:21 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com on Thu Sep 16 17:00:11 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    Its still better than invading my personal device.

    nobody invaded your personal device, certainly not apple.





    If theyre 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 dont anyway? Isnt
    it all or nothing?

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Thu Sep 16 17:01:01 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com on Thu Sep 16 17:40:17 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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 dont seem to mind the constant insults being spewed by Jolly Roger, Lewis, Rod Speed. Why dont 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From badgolferman@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 21:28:24 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 22:02:41 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Thu Sep 16 22:04:24 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to sms on Thu Sep 16 22:10:37 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Sep 16 22:17:45 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net on Thu Sep 16 18:34:33 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rod Speed@21:1/5 to Wilf on Fri Sep 17 09:54:41 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rod Speed@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 10:36:19 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rod Speed@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 10:34:35 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wilf@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 01:43:13 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 02:00:47 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Wilf on Fri Sep 17 02:05:50 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    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).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 01:58:09 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Fri Sep 17 02:11:00 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Fri Sep 17 02:12:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Fri Sep 17 02:13:52 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 03:18:03 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
    You clearly don't know a thing about me, old fart.

    I know enough to know you never earned your high school GED, Jolly Roger.

    You tried, three times, and failed each time.

    No wonder you became an Apple apologist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 03:16:36 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.system

    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
    Lies are all you have, loser.

    Apple apologists have only 7 responses to facts they _hate_ about Apple.

    Without ever having earned his high school GED, Jolly Roger boldly claims to know far more than the entire world does about Apple's recent begging to governments and hackers to please don't look at Apple's code base.

    For sure, Apple never even _once_ tested their iOS code, as proven below...

    *A very deep dive into many new iOS Exploit chains found in the wild* <https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html>

    *Google published details on seven more in-the-wild zero-day iOS exploits* <https://www.itnews.com.au/news/threat-actor-went-through-11-zero-days-in-a-year-562346>

    *Google Finds MORE Zero-Day Vulnerabilities in the untested iOS code base* <https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/285505-google-finds-two-zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-ios>
    --
    Apple profits are huge based on a formula of low R&D and high Marketing!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 06:58:08 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si04bc$t4q$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
    Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
    On 16/09/2021 at 19:10, nospam wrote:
    In article <shvvpm$11i8$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk>
    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.

    Might that just be semantics, though?

    nope. the definition is clear, except to those with agenda and the
    usual trolls.

    Ok, so if a back door is something
    hidden, then this is not a back door per se.

    exactly the point.

    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 doesn’t when considering Islamic countries

    Irrelevant.


    And it doesn’t even have to be images

    Showing your complete and utter lack of understanding as to what the CSAM
    check is and does and how it works.

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

    And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
    which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,

    You obviously not read anything by anyone who knows anything at all.

    --
    'Tell me, Sir Samuel, do you know the phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos
    custodes?"? (...) It means "Who guards the guards themselves?"
    (...) Who watches the Watch?' --Feet of Clay

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 07:05:56 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si0781$i3a$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si04l5$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.

    Well, that is obviously untrue. There are many many people who are very
    much in favor of flagging children-specific sexual abuse material and
    getting people who traffic in such material behind bars where they will
    be unable to continue their kiddie porn habits.

    Do your csam scanning on iCloud just like everyone else.

    How is that better? That requires that Apple unencrypt all of your
    iCloud photos. They do not want to do that, but if enough jackasses like
    you are screaming and stamping their ignoarnt little feet that is what
    Apple will have to do, and thet will be the end of encrypted iCloud
    options.

    Maybe they will add a flag "Full encrypted backups no one but you can
    ever access and on-device scanning of uploaded photos for CSAM images or unencrypted iCloud data and CSAM scanning on the server." I am sure you
    are dump enough to pick the latter.

    If you are concerned about your kiddie porn, turn off iCloud photos.
    Simple.

    There will be a lot less outrage from the general public than scanning
    their personal devices.

    Because of idiots like you and irresponsible "journalists" and
    clickbait sites we may well end up with a much worse and much less
    secure system. Thanks, dumbshits. You all suck.



    --
    'There's a kind of magic in masks. Masks conceal one face, but reveal
    another. The one that only comes out in darkness. I bet you could
    do just what you liked, behind a mask...?' --Maskerade

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 06:54:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si01ja$9km$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsk6n6p.22a.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, 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. Even if
    it doesn’t meet the definition of a back door in your mind now it won’t be
    long before it will become one.

    And you base this nonsensical statement on what? It is utter nonsense.

    --
    Never age. Never die. Live for ever in that one last white-hot
    moment, when the crowd screamed. When every note was a heartbeat.
    Burn across the sky. You will never grow old. They will never say
    you died. --Soul Music

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 07:08:19 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si095h$101$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si0781$i3a$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
    <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

    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?

    unfortunately, there are sexual predators in this world

    No one wants it but Apple.

    no one wants to remove sexual predators from society? really?? is that
    your claim?

    No one wants that system on their personal devices.


    That is a lie.

    put simply, apple's system is significantly more difficult for someone
    to use it for nefarious purposes.

    It’s basically the same thing as turning on the camera and microphone to look in on your private matters.

    It is nothing like that unless your private matters included KNOWN and CATALOGED Child Sexual Abuse Material.

    It’s an unauthorized scan of your personal device.

    No, it is not unauthorized, and it is a scan of photos being uploaded
    to iCloud.



    --
    'What can I do? I'm only human,' he said aloud. Someone said, Not all
    of you. --Pyramids

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 02:15:34 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/13/2021 1:08 PM, badgolferman wrote:
    Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212807 for v14.8's release notes.

    Next, v15? ;)

    After the csam debacle I’m suspicious of any future updates slipping that back door in without telling the user base.

    While that is possible, it's improbable that it would not be discovered
    shortly after it was included. Putting it in surreptitiously, the
    backlash would be even greater than it was originally. But it does make
    sense for users to be cautious and to turn off automatic updates after
    14.8, and update manually until Apple confirms that they have dropped
    the plan entirely.

    What's more likely is that they end up doing is what Johns Hopkins
    University cryptographer Matthew Green suggested in an article in Wired:
    “If they feel they must scan, they should scan unencrypted files on
    their servers,” which is the standard practice for other companies, like Facebook, which regularly scan for not only CSAM but also terroristic
    and other disallowed content types. Green also suggests that Apple
    should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it can’t view
    those images even if it wanted to."

    Green also stated “They clearly feel this is politically challenging,
    which I think shows how untenable their ‘Apple will always refuse
    government pressure’ position is.”

    See: <https://www.wired.com/story/apple-icloud-photo-scan-csam-pause-backlash/>.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 04:20:59 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/16/2021 2:28 PM, badgolferman wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The core issue is that you have a very small group of people that accept anything a company says as gospel, and get very upset when anyone
    challenges their beliefs with facts.

    It's "Apple said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” Once they've
    taken that stand, they feel that there is no need to learn anything,
    hence they resort to their famous one-word responses to posts that
    present factual, referenced information that they don’t want to see.

    The CSAM episode is especially telling because you have people, that are normally staunch defenders of whatever Apple does, actually conceding
    that the on-device photo scanning is a terrible idea, with all kinds of possible unintended, though not unforeseen, consequences. For Apple to
    back down, after initially defending their proposal, is something that doesn’t happen often; it’s a good thing when a company can admit that it made a mistake, and act to correct it.

    We all know what the eventual outcome of all this is going to be. They
    will scan unencrypted files on their servers, which is what other
    companies already do, and what Apple apparently doesn't do. In 2020
    Facebook made over 20 million reports of CSAM, while Apple made less
    than 300. It's possible that this whole CSAM episode resulted from NCMEC
    asking Apple why they have made so few reports of CSAM, and Apple coming
    up with this on-device scanning idea without running a sanity check on it.

    They can still use the CSAM hash if they wish, but on their servers, not
    on user's devices. That would be a good way for them to save face: “our researchers found a new way to scan for CSAM using our servers so we
    don’t have a need to scan on devices.” This would also help repair the image of NCMEC after their ill-advised message to Apple employees
    labeling those opposed to the on-device scanning as "the screeching
    voices of the minority."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Fri Sep 17 10:08:53 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    What's more likely is that they end up doing is what Johns Hopkins
    University cryptographer Matthew Green suggested in an article in Wired:
    If they feel they must scan, they should scan unencrypted files on
    their servers, which is the standard practice for other companies, like Facebook, which regularly scan for not only CSAM but also terroristic
    and other disallowed content types.

    wanting apple to be like facebook is abhorrent.

    scanning on the servers violates the user's privacy, which is what
    apple wants to avoid.

    Green also suggests that Apple
    should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it cant view
    those images even if it wanted to."

    matthew green is not very smart, nor are you.

    icloud is already encrypted, which prevents scanning server-side. they
    are two incompatible concepts.

    apple's csam system is designed so that images can be checked *and*
    still continue with icloud being fully encrypted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joerg Lorenz@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 17 16:36:09 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Am 17.09.21 um 16:08 schrieb nospam:
    In article <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    Green also suggests that Apple
    should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it can¹t view
    those images even if it wanted to."

    matthew green is not very smart, nor are you.

    And you are the most stupid of them all.
    End-to-end encryption of iCloud is the only way to restore confidence in
    Apple.

    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
    And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    icloud is already encrypted, which prevents scanning server-side. they
    are two incompatible concepts.

    apple's csam system is designed so that images can be checked *and*
    still continue with icloud being fully encrypted.

    iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

    --
    De gustibus non est disputandum

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 08:36:06 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920211008559892%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    no, the core issue is that there are a small but vocal group of people
    who do *not* care about facts nor do they have any interest in
    learning, or they have an agenda, and then get very upset when they are presented with easily verifiable facts that shows them to be completely wrong.

    Why does that confession reveal what you have been doing all along?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Joerg Lorenz on Fri Sep 17 08:45:21 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
    (in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):
    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
    And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the land?

    iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

    Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to sms on Fri Sep 17 08:31:59 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si1tmt$hjg$1@dont-email.me>):
    The core issue is that you have a very small group of people that accept anything a company says as gospel, and get very upset when anyone
    challenges their beliefs with facts.

    Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept anything
    Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset when others don't?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 13:07:34 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <1k9gbnlyrswiz$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    no, the core issue is that there are a small but vocal group of people
    who do *not* care about facts nor do they have any interest in
    learning, or they have an agenda, and then get very upset when they are presented with easily verifiable facts that shows them to be completely wrong.

    Why does that confession reveal what you have been doing all along?

    it doesn't.

    i've linked to actual facts. you and your troll-buddies keep babbling
    about things you don't understand and get mad when called out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 10:10:57 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 9:31 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si1tmt$hjg$1@dont-email.me>):
    The core issue is that you have a very small group of people that accept
    anything a company says as gospel, and get very upset when anyone
    challenges their beliefs with facts.

    Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset when others don't?

    This is not that uncommon in various forums. Someone buys a specific
    product or service, be it a car, a phone, a computer, a credit card, a
    wireless provider etc., and feels compelled to go to fantastic fantasy
    in order to defend their buying decision.

    Most people can point out the pros and cons of why they made a specific
    choice, and even admit when they made a mistake, rather than trying to
    get others to make the same mistake that they made. I can tell other
    people what I bought, and why, while at the same time explaining why it
    might not be the best choice for them.

    With the whole Android device and operating system, versus iOS device
    and operating system discussion, there are people that get extremely
    upset every time someone points out a limitation of one or the other.
    This is one reason I prepared the document that explained the features
    of each device and OS that many users of the other OS, wish that they
    had. I have references and citations for nearly every item in the list.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    30 iOS Features Some of Which [many] Android Users Wish they Had
    116 Android Features Some of Which [many] iOS Users Wish they Had

    <https://tinyurl.com/fzje7h9e> or <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>

    46 Pages of Extensively Referenced Information with Hundreds of
    Citations

    ✓ 100% Fact Checked ✓ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 10:52:50 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 10:35 AM, badgolferman wrote:
    RonTheGuy wrote:

    Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept
    anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset
    when others don't?


    Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social positions today.

    Well don't exprapolate the rantings of a few Usenet trolls onto the
    hundreds of millions of users of Apple devices that would be just as
    amused as the kind of stuff we see in this forum!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to sms on Fri Sep 17 09:57:26 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si2j47$hel$1@dont-email.me>):
    And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are
    stored in the data centers

    Is Apple's storing of your encryption keys in the same data center as Apple stores your data a good idea? Who has the control over your data & the keys?

    In any case, the CSAM on-device scanning idea is almost certainly not
    coming back. Apple will end up doing the much same thing that Facebook
    does when it comes to detecting and reporting CSAM.

    Why would Apple want to become an active branch of any local government?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 10:10:51 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920211307353025%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    can anybody make sense of why some people accept what's demonstrably
    false and then get upset when presented with actual facts?

    Isn't that a good description of you?

    another thing, jobs hasn't said much of anything in the past decade.

    Did you disagree with the "holding it wrong" accusation from Steve Jobs?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Fri Sep 17 18:13:30 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    On 2021-09-17, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
    You clearly don't know a thing about me, old fart.

    I know enough to know you never earned your high school GED, Jolly
    Roger.

    You tried, three times, and failed each time.

    LOL... BZZZT! Wrong. : D You obviously think I am someone I am not, and
    you are so confident in your ineptitude it's hilarious. Please do
    continue! Go ahead and tell everyone more about who you think I am,
    dipshit. This is fun! : )

    No wonder you became an Apple apologist.

    You loser trolls constantly project your weaknesses onto others. You're pathetic excuses for human beings, and the world improves a bit each day
    one of you finally keels over and dies. And many of us will celebrate
    right here in this newsgroup when your day comes.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Fri Sep 17 10:14:27 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8fn3.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    It is nothing like that unless your private matters included KNOWN and CATALOGED Child Sexual Abuse Material.

    Is it only your sexual predators who signed that public letter to Tim Cook?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 10:26:30 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 9:45 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
    (in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):
    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
    And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the land?

    A lot of companies tailor their products differently for different
    markets. Look at cars, where safety features that are required in one
    country are omitted in countries where they are not required.

    The key thing for Apple is not build features into the device or
    operating system than can be used to violate the privacy of users,
    because there are governments that will demand access to such features.

    That said, expectations of privacy vary greatly in different countries.
    If you use WeChat in China you know that your communications, your
    travel, and your expenditures, are not private. Read <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html>.

    iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

    Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?

    Cloud storage encryption matters very much for those with an expectation
    of privacy. As the New York Times investigation stated: "Apple abandoned
    the encryption technology it used elsewhere after China would not allow
    it. And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are
    stored in the data centers they’re meant to secure."

    In any case, the CSAM on-device scanning idea is almost certainly not
    coming back. Apple will end up doing the much same thing that Facebook
    does when it comes to detecting and reporting CSAM.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From badgolferman@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 17:35:39 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    RonTheGuy wrote:

    Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept
    anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset
    when others don't?


    Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social
    positions today.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Fri Sep 17 13:22:27 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si2i73$4rt$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    This is not that uncommon in various forums. Someone buys a specific
    product or service, be it a car, a phone, a computer, a credit card, a wireless provider etc., and feels compelled to go to fantastic fantasy
    in order to defend their buying decision.

    like you do with verizon, along with many other products?




    With the whole Android device and operating system, versus iOS device
    and operating system discussion, there are people that get extremely
    upset every time someone points out a limitation of one or the other.

    nope. they get upset when certain people (namely you) repeatedly *lie*
    about the limitations, all of which can easily be shown to be false.

    for example, you've falsely claimed that face id has the limitation of requiring room light to function. that is a lie.

    you also claimed mobile device management is limited to only corporate
    users. that too is a lie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Fri Sep 17 10:18:45 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8fik.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    If you are concerned about your kiddie porn, turn off iCloud photos.

    How does anything you do stop malevolent governments & malware writers?

    Because of idiots like you and irresponsible "journalists" and
    clickbait sites we may well end up with a much worse and much less
    secure system. Thanks, dumbshits. You all suck.

    Why do you think everyone who cares about privacy is a dumbshit who sucks?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Fri Sep 17 10:22:05 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
    which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,

    Why do you think Apple was planning on simultaneously releasing CSAM &
    iMessage on-phone scans under the same timed Public Relations blitz?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Lewis on Fri Sep 17 18:33:02 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-17, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
    In message <si01ja$9km$1@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsk6n6p.22a.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, 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.
    Even if it doesn’t meet the definition of a back door in your mind
    now it won’t be long before it will become one.

    And you base this nonsensical statement on what? It is utter nonsense.

    It's based on his feelings, because he is *driven* by fear.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 11:35:30 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 11:22 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
    which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,

    Why do you think Apple was planning on simultaneously releasing CSAM & iMessage on-phone scans under the same timed Public Relations blitz?

    It would be truly amazing if anyone at Apple believed that this whole
    mess was going to be a Public Relations win.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 18:43:50 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-17, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
    (in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):

    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail
    Apple. And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the
    land?

    You still haven't been able to show a single law that requires Apple to
    report non-CSAM photos to authorities of any country.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Joerg Lorenz on Fri Sep 17 18:41:56 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-17, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
    Am 17.09.21 um 16:08 schrieb nospam:
    In article <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me>, sms

    Green also suggests that Apple should make iCloud storage end-to-end
    encrypted, so that it can¹t view those images even if it wanted to."

    matthew green is not very smart, nor are you.

    And you are the most stupid of them all.

    Projection.

    End-to-end encryption of iCloud is the only way to restore confidence
    in Apple.

    Doing the matching on device would allow end-to-end encryption for this
    data. Doing the matching on the servers, as you and your butt buddy
    trolls claim to want instead, would preclude end-to-end encryption. To
    anyone with critical thinking skills, it's crystal clear who is stupid
    here.

    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail
    Apple. And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    icloud is already encrypted, which prevents scanning server-side.
    they are two incompatible concepts.

    apple's csam system is designed so that images can be checked *and*
    still continue with icloud being fully encrypted.

    iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

    That's a bullshit statement, so you are projecting yet again. Encryption
    is very important and is definitely not "PR bullshit".

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joerg Lorenz@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 17 21:39:44 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Am 17.09.21 um 19:57 schrieb RonTheGuy:
    Why would Apple want to become an active branch of any local government?

    You are very naive.
    *ROE*

    --
    De gustibus non est disputandum

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joerg Lorenz@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 17 21:37:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Am 17.09.21 um 18:45 schrieb RonTheGuy:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
    (in article<news:si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me>):
    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail Apple.
    And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the land?

    *SIC*.
    Protonmail does too ...

    iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

    Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?

    What would be the difference? None.

    --
    De gustibus non est disputandum

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com on Fri Sep 17 16:04:38 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si2jlb$pvp$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

    Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social positions today.

    it isn't, nor are the others either.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Fri Sep 17 16:04:37 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si2j47$hel$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    The key thing for Apple is not build features into the device or
    operating system than can be used to violate the privacy of users,
    because there are governments that will demand access to such features.

    apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the privacy
    of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access to such
    features either.

    your suggestion that apple do it the way facebook does it means they
    *would* violate user privacy and *would* allow governments to demand
    access.






    Cloud storage encryption matters very much for those with an expectation
    of privacy. As the New York Times investigation stated: "Apple abandoned
    the encryption technology it used elsewhere after China would not allow
    it. And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are stored in the data centers theyre meant to secure."

    that's a gross misrepresentation of what it stated.

    In any case, the CSAM on-device scanning idea is almost certainly not
    coming back. Apple will end up doing the much same thing that Facebook
    does when it comes to detecting and reporting CSAM.

    but you just said apple should not violate people's privacy because
    governments will want to demand access.

    see above, for your exact words.

    facebook's system is the very opposite of that.

    you really need to work on your trolling so that you don't contradict
    yourself in the same post.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 16:04:40 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <18j7qb7b6e1mg$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    can anybody make sense of why some people accept what's demonstrably
    false and then get upset when presented with actual facts?

    Isn't that a good description of you?

    nope. it's a perfect description of you.

    i'm the one presenting the facts to you and your troll-buddies, who
    refuse to even look at any of it and continue to insist you are correct
    despite extensive proof to the contrary.

    even after being proven wrong, you and your ilk continue to insist
    falsehoods.

    you aren't interested in learning anything. maybe incapable of such.



    Did you disagree with the "holding it wrong" accusation from Steve Jobs?

    i disagree with the claim that it's only the iphone 4 that had a
    problem.

    it's something that affects *any* device with a radio.

    despite what some people think, not even apple can get around the laws
    of physics.

    placing a hand on or near an antenna will affect its performance, no
    matter who makes the device.

    other phone makers understand that, which is why they also said how to
    properly hold their phones, some long before steve jobs did.

    hypocrisy knows no bounds. a few phone makers were caught criticizing
    apple about how to hold the iphone while giving similar instructions on
    how to hold and not hold their own phones.

    do you want to see the many, many links that show how ignorant you are?

    think carefully before you answer.

    but for starters, here's one of many examples: <https://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tumblr-m5fql0ybHB 1qcigboo1-1280.png>
    Do not touch or cover the area around the antenna with your hands
    or other objects while using the GPS functions.
    ...
    Do not touch the device's internal antenna. Doing so may result in
    reduced call quality or cause the device to emit unintended levels
    of radio frequency (RF) energy.

    there are more. many, many more.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 21:00:46 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <iqh9l9F84bcU1@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
    * 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

    And the images that are viewed by an Apple employee are NOT the CSAM
    images, nor the user's image. They are VERY low resolution versions that
    are just enough that a human can tell there is probably a match (or
    not).

    * 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

    And the parent is ONLY notified if the child confirms TWICE that they
    want to view the image, and then the image is sent from the child's
    phone to the parents, with the knowledge of the kid. Again, this is an
    opt-in feature and no one gets secret messages forward to anyone.

    For children 13 and older, the blurring still happens and the warning
    still occurs, bu there is no notification to the parents.

    I know a lot of adults (mostly women) who would very much like to opt-in
    their own accounts for this AI/ML scanning of photos, but it's only for children's accounts.

    --
    I WILL NOT SCREAM FOR ICE CREAM Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF03

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 21:12:55 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <1943ttkgn96el.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 16, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si0081$v96$1@dont-email.me>):
    it's a virtual certainty that they would insist.

    Governments & malware writers are probably still working on expanding the back doors

    You have no clue what you are talking about. You have decided to cloak
    yourself in ignorance and refuse to do anything but spew the same
    ignorant misinformed and completely wrong information over and over.

    Apple said they always follow the law in every country they sell phones.

    And as you have been asked over and over again, which law are you
    talking about? An imaginary law?

    You are aware that CSAM scanning is already being done by all hosts,
    right? Apple has been the outlier because they wanted a system that
    preserves privacy, but we have these anti-privacy cunts screaming about
    how bad Apple's system is.

    It's very simple, if you think scanning photos on the server is "better"
    you are an advocate for no-privacy.

    --
    'If you sow dragons' teeth, you should get dragons. Not fighting
    skeletons. What did it say on the packet?' 'I don't know! The
    myth never said anything about them coming in a packet!' 'Should
    have said "Comes up Dragons" on the packet.'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 21:34:37 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-17, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si2j47$hel$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    The key thing for Apple is not build features into the device or
    operating system than can be used to violate the privacy of users,
    because there are governments that will demand access to such
    features.

    apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the
    privacy of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access
    to such features either.

    your suggestion that apple do it the way facebook does it means they
    *would* violate user privacy and *would* allow governments to demand
    access.

    sms and his troll butt buddies are so hell-bent on disparaging
    everything Apple they are completely unwilling to acknowledge that Apple
    might be inclined to design a system that protects the privacy of its customers, which is why you see them preferring the systems in use by Microsoft, Google, and other companies that brazenly violates the
    privacy of their customers by decrypting and examining all of their data
    on company servers.

    Cloud storage encryption matters very much for those with an expectation
    of privacy. As the New York Times investigation stated: "Apple abandoned
    the encryption technology it used elsewhere after China would not allow
    it. And the digital keys that unlock information on those computers are
    stored in the data centers they¹re meant to secure."

    that's a gross misrepresentation of what it stated.

    Yep.

    ---
    The main point in the article comes down to where the encryption keys to
    unlock that data are held. Initially, Apple has reportedly demanded it
    keep the keys in the United States. When the law went into effect in
    2017, the location of the keys “was left intentionally vague,” and eight months later, the keys were being stored in China.

    But the iCloud data in China is vulnerable to the Chinese government
    because Apple made a series of compromises to meet the authorities’
    demands, according to dozens of pages of internal Apple documents on the planned design and security of the Chinese iCloud system, which were
    reviewed for The Times by an Apple engineer and four independent
    security researchers.

    The digital keys that can decrypt iCloud data are usually stored on
    specialized devices, called hardware security modules, that are made by
    Thales, a French technology company. But China would not approve the use
    of the Thales devices, according to two employees. So Apple created new
    device
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Fri Sep 17 19:11:35 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnska0fu.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    And the parent is ONLY notified if the child confirms TWICE that they
    want to view the image, and then the image is sent from the child's
    phone to the parents, with the knowledge of the kid. Again, this is an
    opt-in feature and no one gets secret messages forward to anyone.

    How can you still be so unaware of the real issue here with bad parents?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Fri Sep 17 19:08:04 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnska16n.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    Governments & malware writers are probably still working on expanding the
    back doors

    You have no clue what you are talking about.

    How can you still be unaware of everything the security experts have said?

    You have decided to cloak
    yourself in ignorance and refuse to do anything but spew the same
    ignorant misinformed and completely wrong information over and over.

    How can you still be unaware what a hundred privacy organizations have said?

    Apple said they always follow the law in every country they sell phones.

    And as you have been asked over and over again, which law are you
    talking about? An imaginary law?

    How can you still be unaware Tim Cook said Apple follows all local laws?

    You are aware that CSAM scanning is already being done by all hosts,
    right? Apple has been the outlier because they wanted a system that
    preserves privacy, but we have these anti-privacy cunts screaming about
    how bad Apple's system is.

    Why is it that it's only you who is unaware of Apple's broken promises?

    It's very simple, if you think scanning photos on the server is "better"
    you are an advocate for no-privacy.

    Are you still unaware Apple acted as an active branch of local authorities?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 23:13:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-17, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnska16n.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    Governments & malware writers are probably still working on expanding the >>> back doors

    You have no clue what you are talking about.

    How can you still be unaware

    Projection from a willfully ignorant fool.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to sms on Fri Sep 17 19:16:12 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si2n5i$a11$2@dont-email.me>):
    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
    which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,

    Why do you think Apple was planning on simultaneously releasing CSAM &
    iMessage on-phone scans under the same timed Public Relations blitz?

    It would be truly amazing if anyone at Apple believed that this whole
    mess was going to be a Public Relations win.

    How can Lewis still be unaware of almost everything he has spoken about?

    Is it only Lewis who is still unaware both types of on the phone scanning
    were to be released by Apple under the same public relations blitz campaign?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 19:28:51 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920211604371367%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the privacy
    of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access to such
    features either.

    Once these new back doors are in billions of devices they can't be closed.
    Then how does Apple prevent a government from passing laws like China did?
    And how does Apple prevent malware actors from exploiting these back doors?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Fri Sep 17 19:25:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, badgolferman wrote
    (in article<news:si2jlb$pvp$1@dont-email.me>):
    Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept
    anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset
    when others don't?

    Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social positions today.

    Don't most religious accept that others should be allowed to have privacy?

    What is it about their religion that makes people like Lewis call us "cunts" for caring about our privacy?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 19:21:15 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920211604401543%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    can anybody make sense of why some people accept what's demonstrably
    false and then get upset when presented with actual facts?

    Isn't that a good description of you?

    nope. it's a perfect description of you.

    You gave a great description of yourself in the past few message articles.

    Did you disagree with the "holding it wrong" accusation from Steve Jobs?

    i disagree with the claim that it's only the iphone 4 that had a
    problem.

    How did I know you would agree with everything about Apple Jobs ever said?
    Have you ever disagreed with anything about Apple that Tim Cook has said?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 19:31:03 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqk5v6Forn9U7@mid.individual.net>):
    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail
    Apple. And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the
    land?

    You still haven't been able to show a single law that requires Apple to report non-CSAM photos to authorities of any country.

    How can you still be unaware that the laws will be made in the future
    once Apple has put these two back doors on billions of iPhones world wide?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 23:54:19 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-17, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqk5v6Forn9U7@mid.individual.net>):
    For the so called laws endorcement it is quite easy to blackmail
    Apple. And they will obey immediately. They already do.

    Wasn't it Apple's own Tim Cook who said they obey all the laws of the
    land?

    You still haven't been able to show a single law that requires Apple to
    report non-CSAM photos to authorities of any country.

    laws will be made in the future

    "Donkeys will fly, y'all. Trust me!"

    Ron, the drunkest guy in town.

    Clearly.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me on Fri Sep 17 20:06:32 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <slrnska0fu.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

    * only vouchers that are reviewed and verified by a human being to be
    actual child abuse material are forwarded to authorities

    And the images that are viewed by an Apple employee are NOT the CSAM
    images, nor the user's image. They are VERY low resolution versions that
    are just enough that a human can tell there is probably a match (or
    not).

    that brings up a very interesting legal question for which i've not yet
    seen a good answer.

    what amount (and type) of degradation is sufficient such that a illegal
    image is no longer considered illegal, yet still recognizable so that
    it can accurately be matched to an actual illegal csam image?

    i've seen all sorts of speculation, but nothing that is particularly convincing.

    while the usual idiots are babbling about backdoors and various other
    things they don't understand, they are completely oblivious to what is
    actually a potential issue with the system.

    presumably apple has a very good answer, but i've yet to see it.




    I know a lot of adults (mostly women) who would very much like to opt-in their own accounts for this AI/ML scanning of photos, but it's only for children's accounts.

    that is unfortunately true.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 20:06:33 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <1018x3s5if8rq.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the privacy
    of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access to such features either.

    Once these new back doors are in billions of devices they can't be closed.

    there are no backdoors. stop using words you do not understand.

    Then how does Apple prevent a government from passing laws like China did?

    already explained. you aren't interested learning how.

    And how does Apple prevent malware actors from exploiting these back doors?

    already explained. you aren't interested learning how.

    Ron, the dumbest guy in town.

    ftfy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 23:53:01 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-17, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqkloeFrq8pU2@mid.individual.net>):
    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked

    How can you still be unaware

    Projection from a willfully ignorant fool.

    all my responses are based on awareness

    False. All of your responses are based on fearful imagination.

    Ron, the most fearful 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 19:37:07 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqkloeFrq8pU2@mid.individual.net>):
    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
    How can you still be unaware

    Projection from a willfully ignorant fool.

    Why is it all my responses are based on awareness and yours are all not?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 17:09:44 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 4:16 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:

    <snip>

    Is it only Lewis who is still unaware both types of on the phone scanning were to be released by Apple under the same public relations blitz campaign?

    No, he, as well as all the others trying to defend this, are well aware
    that what they are saying is untrue.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Fri Sep 17 20:10:54 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si3ao8$pmv$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    No, he, as well as all the others trying to defend this, are well aware
    that what they I am saying is untrue.

    ftfy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:12:17 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212006332324%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    there are no backdoors.

    How can you still be unaware of everything all the experts have said?

    Apple Adds a Backdoor to iMessage and iCloud Storage https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/08/apple-adds-a-backdoor-to-imesssage-and-icloud-storage.html

    Then how does Apple prevent a government from passing laws like China did?

    already explained. you aren't interested learning how.

    How can you still be unaware Apple doesn't control how back doors are used?

    And how does Apple prevent malware actors from exploiting these back doors?

    already explained. you aren't interested learning how.

    How can you still be unaware these new back doors aren't in Apple's control?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 20:12:53 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <f2au8m5g3dr7.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    How can you still be unaware of everything all the experts have said?

    logical fallacy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Joerg Lorenz on Fri Sep 17 19:34:35 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
    (in article<news:si2qpf$fit$1@dont-email.me>):
    iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

    Does Apple give governments your encrypted files or your unencrypted files?

    What would be the difference? None.

    It was a statement agreeing that iCloud end to end encryption is only PR.

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 16:07:02 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqko6jFsmruU3@mid.individual.net>):
    iCloud end to end encryption is only PR.

    False.

    Does Apple give governments the encrypted files or the unencrypted files?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 17:18:08 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 4:28 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920211604371367%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the privacy
    of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access to such
    features either.

    Once these new back doors are in billions of devices they can't be closed. Then how does Apple prevent a government from passing laws like China did? And how does Apple prevent malware actors from exploiting these back doors?

    Yes, that's the precise concern of human rights groups, child advocates,
    the LGBTQ+ community, and privacy advocates.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:23:53 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212010547958%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    No, he, as well as all the others trying to defend this, are well aware
    that what they I am saying is untrue.

    ftfy

    What did Lewis and nospam hope to gain by denying both types of on the phone scanning were to be released under the same public relations blitz campaign?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 17:16:15 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 4:25 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, badgolferman wrote
    (in article<news:si2jlb$pvp$1@dont-email.me>):
    Can anybody make sense of why that "small group of people" accept
    anything Jobs said or Cook says "as gospel" & then they get upset
    when others don't?

    Apple is a religion, much like environmentalism and many other social
    positions today.

    Don't most religious accept that others should be allowed to have privacy?

    Have you never encountered evangelical Christians, Mormons, or Jehovah's witnesses. Part of their belief system is to proselytize.

    Some religions explicitly don't proselytize, i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism,
    Judaism, but accept people that choose to convert of their own accord.
    What is it about their religion that makes people like Lewis call us "cunts" for caring about our privacy?

    They behave like that because of their own insecurities. They are
    lashing out, not realizing that lying is not the way to convert others
    to their point of view.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:19:53 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212006362518%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    you don't like being proven wrong, so you resort to attacks.

    You think that's a sort of "attack" to know you would have agreed with Jobs?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 20:24:02 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <1kvqojb6ht5mu$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    you don't like being proven wrong, so you resort to attacks.

    You think that's a sort of "attack" to know you would have agreed with Jobs?

    you asked a question and i gave an extensive answer which showed you to
    be wrong, which you snipped and continued attacking.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 20:25:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <1btm2dof5nyjb$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    What did Lewis and nospam hope to gain by denying both types of on the phone scanning were to be released under the same public relations blitz campaign?

    nobody denied that.

    Ron, the most dishonest guy in town.

    ftfy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to sms on Fri Sep 17 16:38:31 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si3b4h$343$1@dont-email.me>):
    What is it about their religion that makes people like Lewis call us "cunts" >> for caring about our privacy?

    They behave like that because of their own insecurities. They are
    lashing out, not realizing that lying is not the way to convert others
    to their point of view.

    Can Lewis still be unaware that a hundred unique privacy organizations & thousands of experts are who we have based our stated opinions upon?

    How does it make sense for Lewis to call anyone "cunts" for wanting privacy?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Fri Sep 17 20:24:01 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si3b4h$343$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:



    Have you never encountered evangelical Christians, Mormons, or Jehovah's witnesses. Part of their belief system is to proselytize.

    which one of those are you?


    They behave like that because of their own insecurities. They are
    lashing out, not realizing that lying is not the way to convert others
    to their point of view.

    then why do you continue to lie?

    just about everything you say about apple and their products is easily
    shown to be false.

    one could claim ignorance, except that you've been told that they're
    false and with extensive proof, yet you continue to say the same
    things, thereby making it deliberate intentional lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:54:42 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212025189811%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
    which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all,

    Why do you think Apple was planning on simultaneously releasing CSAM &
    iMessage on-phone scans under the same timed Public Relations blitz?

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    What did Lewis and nospam hope to gain by denying both types of on the phone >> scanning were to be released under the same public relations blitz campaign?

    nobody denied that.

    Do you at least now understand Apple released both campaigns simultaneously?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to sms on Fri Sep 17 16:42:53 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si3b80$343$2@dont-email.me>):
    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    apple's csam system was designed so that it *can't* violate the privacy
    of their users and so that governments *can't* demand access to such
    features either.

    Once these new back doors are in billions of devices they can't be closed. >> Then how does Apple prevent a government from passing laws like China did? >> And how does Apple prevent malware actors from exploiting these back doors?

    Yes, that's the precise concern of human rights groups, child advocates,
    the LGBTQ+ community, and privacy advocates.

    What does nospam gain by saying everyone who disagrees with Apple is wrong?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:40:12 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212012535114%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    How can you still be unaware of everything all the experts have said?

    logical fallacy.

    What do you gain by calling a hundred different privacy organizations wrong?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:47:34 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212006342387%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    how is that even apple's problem? should apple require parenting
    classes as a prerequisite for buying an iphone?

    How can you still be unaware that a privacy problem is bad parents exist?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:56:16 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212024025273%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    you don't like being proven wrong, so you resort to attacks.

    You think that's a sort of "attack" to know you would have agreed with Jobs?

    you asked a question and i gave an extensive answer which showed you to
    be wrong, which you snipped and continued attacking.

    How does you agreeing with Jobs (as I said you would) "prove me wrong?"

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 16:57:49 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212024015207%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    one could claim ignorance, except that you've been told that they're
    false and with extensive proof, yet you continue to say the same
    things, thereby making it deliberate intentional lies.

    Why is it that they are describing themselves in almost every message now?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Fri Sep 17 18:18:32 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/17/2021 5:57 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212024015207%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    one could claim ignorance, except that you've been told that they're
    false and with extensive proof, yet you continue to say the same
    things, thereby making it deliberate intentional lies.

    Why is it that they are describing themselves in almost every message now?

    "The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who
    doesn't care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs
    and illusions. Never waste time on discussions that make no sense...
    There are people who for all the evidence presented to them, do not have
    the ability to understand, and others who are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and the only thing that they want is to be right even if
    they aren’t."

    "When ignorance screams, intelligence shuts up. Your peace and
    tranquility are worth more."

    Stop arguing with fools. Filter them out like most of us already do.

    <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/story-donkey-tiger-akhilesh-sengar/>.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 21:27:31 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <1mfxbie55rbar$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    Do you at least now understand Apple released both campaigns simultaneously?

    that was never in dispute.

    Ron, the most dishonest guy in town.

    ftfy

    you keep moving the goalposts each time you're shown to be wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Fri Sep 17 21:27:34 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si3epa$4ch$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    There are people who for all the evidence presented to them, do not have
    the ability to understand,

    you being the best example of that

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 17:42:44 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 18, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212127333870%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    How does you agreeing with Jobs (as I said you would) "prove me wrong?"

    reread the part you snipped where i proved you wrong and stop twisting
    what was said to deny it.

    I said you'd agree with Jobs and you agreed with Jobs.
    How is that somehow in your mind that makes me wrong?

    You don't even make any sense to yourself.
    This is it.

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Fri Sep 17 22:10:45 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <54kg0heh43rv.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    Do you at least now understand Apple released both campaigns
    simultaneously?

    that was never in dispute.

    Read the quote you snipped out from Lewis who also disputed it as you did.

    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
    which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all

    he is correct.

    they are two separate systems, along with a third that was about siri,
    all of which were released at the same time, something which not a
    single person has disputed.

    you are desperate.

    Now you're not even making sense to yourself.

    more bullshit.

    With that I'm going to cut the cord.

    wise move on your part.

    Ron, the trolliest guy in town.

    ftfy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Sep 17 17:48:00 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212127313791%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    Do you at least now understand Apple released both campaigns simultaneously?

    that was never in dispute.

    Read the quote you snipped out from Lewis who also disputed it as you did.

    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8f3v.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    And once again, you show your total ignorance of the Messages system
    which has NOTHING to do with the CSAM system at all

    Now you're not even making sense to yourself.
    With that I'm going to cut the cord.

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Sat Sep 18 03:11:03 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-18, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212012535114%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    How can you still be unaware of everything all the experts have said?

    logical fallacy.

    What do you gain

    Sanity.

    Meanwhile your fear-driven world is based on the opposite.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to nospam on Sat Sep 18 03:09:51 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-18, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnska0fu.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
    <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

    * only vouchers that are reviewed and verified by a human being to
    be actual child abuse material are forwarded to authorities

    And the images that are viewed by an Apple employee are NOT the CSAM
    images, nor the user's image. They are VERY low resolution versions
    that are just enough that a human can tell there is probably a match
    (or not).

    that brings up a very interesting legal question for which i've not
    yet seen a good answer.

    what amount (and type) of degradation is sufficient such that a
    illegal image is no longer considered illegal, yet still recognizable
    so that it can accurately be matched to an actual illegal csam image?

    i've seen all sorts of speculation, but nothing that is particularly convincing.

    All we know is that the secure safety vouchers contain a "visual
    derivative" of the original photo. It wouldn't be all that hard to have
    AI trained to obscure sensitive portions of he human anatomy in a given
    photo. And I suspect that's exactly what Apple is doing.

    presumably apple has a very good answer, but i've yet to see it.

    I doubt anyone outside of Apple will actually see it. But I have little
    doubt Apple can and will do it in a way that preserves privacy by
    obscuring sensitive portions of potential matches.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From *Hemidactylus*@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Fri Sep 17 23:34:21 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
    On 2021-09-18, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212012535114%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    How can you still be unaware of everything all the experts have said?

    logical fallacy.

    What do you gain

    Sanity.

    Meanwhile your fear-driven world is based on the opposite.

    Why has this thread become so popular? It like hijacked my phone. Arlen?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joerg Lorenz@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 18 07:32:32 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Am 18.09.21 um 02:40 schrieb RonTheGuy:
    On Sep 17, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:170920212012535114%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    How can you still be unaware of everything all the experts have said?

    logical fallacy.

    What do you gain by calling a hundred different privacy organizations wrong?

    Permanent smart ass-mode. Also a kind of a backdoor ... *SCNR*


    --
    De gustibus non est disputandum

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joerg Lorenz@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 18 07:34:43 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Am 18.09.21 um 02:42 schrieb RonTheGuy:
    On Sep 17, 2021, sms wrote
    Yes, that's the precise concern of human rights groups, child advocates,
    the LGBTQ+ community, and privacy advocates.

    What does nospam gain by saying everyone who disagrees with Apple is wrong?

    Call Apple and find out what this paid agent-provocateur gets per post.

    --
    De gustibus non est disputandum

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wilf@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Sat Sep 18 09:56:48 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 18/09/2021 at 01:07, RonTheGuy wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqko6jFsmruU3@mid.individual.net>):
    iCloud end to end encryption is only PR.

    False.

    Does Apple give governments the encrypted files or the unencrypted files?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.


    Who knows, but someone has to give them to Apple, I assume, and it is
    there that changes could be made.

    --
    Wilf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Ant on Sat Sep 18 11:43:16 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/13/2021 6:20 PM, Ant wrote:
    In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
    In message <4audnWR8JIV_EKL8nZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212807 for v14.8's release notes.

    Next, v15? ;)

    Yes, we already know iOS 15 will be released soon as some of us have
    been running the beta for months. Could be tomorrow, more likely Friday
    or next Week, depends on which schedule Apple chooses and when the new
    phones will actually be in customer's hands,

    How's v15 so far? Stable enough?

    I used to have automatic updates enabled on all my Apple devices
    (iPhone, iPad, Watch). Now I'm a little more cautious. Just like you
    should not buy a new device until a few months after it's released, you
    now should probably wait a bit prior to installing iOS updates until
    they can be vetted by independent sources.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to jollyroger@pobox.com on Sat Sep 18 15:27:13 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <iql3juF4k0U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

    * only vouchers that are reviewed and verified by a human being to
    be actual child abuse material are forwarded to authorities

    And the images that are viewed by an Apple employee are NOT the CSAM
    images, nor the user's image. They are VERY low resolution versions
    that are just enough that a human can tell there is probably a match
    (or not).

    that brings up a very interesting legal question for which i've not
    yet seen a good answer.

    what amount (and type) of degradation is sufficient such that a
    illegal image is no longer considered illegal, yet still recognizable
    so that it can accurately be matched to an actual illegal csam image?

    i've seen all sorts of speculation, but nothing that is particularly convincing.

    All we know is that the secure safety vouchers contain a "visual
    derivative" of the original photo. It wouldn't be all that hard to have
    AI trained to obscure sensitive portions of he human anatomy in a given photo. And I suspect that's exactly what Apple is doing.

    maybe, but the question remains, what amount/type of degradation makes
    an illegal image now legal to have.

    presumably apple has a very good answer, but i've yet to see it.

    I doubt anyone outside of Apple will actually see it.

    the *only* entity allowed to have such images is ncmec.

    But I have little
    doubt Apple can and will do it in a way that preserves privacy by
    obscuring sensitive portions of potential matches.

    privacy isn't the issue.

    the system is designed to preserve privacy, but the 'visual derivative'
    has to be not too far off to be matchable, yet far enough to not be
    considered itself csam.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Sat Sep 18 15:27:14 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si5c04$oia$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    should not buy a new device until a few months after it's released,

    there is no point in doing that since the hardware is not going to
    change unless there's a major hardware problem, in which case there
    will be a recall to replace existing units.

    you
    now should probably wait a bit prior to installing iOS updates until
    they can be vetted by independent sources.

    a few days is sufficient to weed out the major problems.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From badgolferman@21:1/5 to sms on Sat Sep 18 20:00:50 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/13/2021 6:20 PM, Ant wrote:
    In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
    In message <4audnWR8JIV_EKL8nZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant
    <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212807 for v14.8's release notes.

    Next, v15? ;)

    Yes, we already know iOS 15 will be released soon as some of us have
    been running the beta for months. Could be tomorrow, more likely Friday
    or next Week, depends on which schedule Apple chooses and when the new
    phones will actually be in customer's hands,

    How's v15 so far? Stable enough?

    I used to have automatic updates enabled on all my Apple devices
    (iPhone, iPad, Watch). Now I'm a little more cautious. Just like you
    should not buy a new device until a few months after it's released, you
    now should probably wait a bit prior to installing iOS updates until
    they can be vetted by independent sources.


    I tend to wait a week or two until I make sure there aren’t a bunch of complaints about the update.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to badgolferman on Sat Sep 18 13:03:29 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/16/2021 1:49 PM, badgolferman wrote:

    <snip>

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

    We all know what the eventual outcome of all this is going to be. Apple
    will scan unencrypted files on their servers, which is what other
    companies, like Facebook, already do.

    Apple can still use the CSAM hashes, but on their servers, not on users’ devices. They can state something like: “our researchers invented a new
    way to scan for CSAM using our servers so we no longer have a need to
    scan on devices.”

    Repairing the bruised image of NCMEC needs to also be attempted. Their ill-advised message to Apple employees, labeling those who favor privacy
    "the screeching voices of the minority" should never have happened (this
    was an internal memo from Apple quoting a separate memo from NCMEC, so
    both organizations are culpable). While it was intended to never be made public, there were so many Apple employees that were upset at the CSAM proposal, Apple should have known that the message would be leaked.

    Hopefully Apple will put procedures in place that will prevent this kind
    of thing in the future. Perhaps set up an advisory committee with
    participants from leading privacy and human rights organizations to vet anything they plan to add to their devices that affect privacy.

    In a few months this whole debacle will fall out of the news cycle and
    “those who must not be named,” those nattering nabobs of negativism that have vainly attempted to deny the reality that this is, indeed, a back
    door, will have find a new chew toy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Sat Sep 18 21:14:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <1abkudaeje3yq.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnska0fu.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    And the parent is ONLY notified if the child confirms TWICE that they
    want to view the image, and then the image is sent from the child's
    phone to the parents, with the knowledge of the kid. Again, this is an
    opt-in feature and no one gets secret messages forward to anyone.

    How can you still be so unaware of the real issue here with bad parents?

    Which is why the parental notification only exists for children who re
    12yo and under.


    --
    Margo: I look like Jack Sparrow if he were played by a man.
    Eliot: I was actually thinking more like a fem bot Nick Fury.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to sms on Sat Sep 18 21:06:59 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <shvpm2$g8t$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/16/2021 7:11 AM, badgolferman wrote:
    Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
    On 16/09/2021 at 03:23, Lewis wrote:
    In message <16y8ioruep95q$.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"? What >>> do they classify as a "back door", and why do some here say there is no
    "back door"? TIA.


    It’s a matter of perspective. Call it a back door, side door, or full
    frontal attack. What it comes down to is Apple is introducing a method
    which will scan your personal device for files which someone has determined >> are illegal. Who that “someone” is will be ambiguous forever.

    Exactly. Those that insist that it's not a "back door" are really
    arguing semantics.

    EFF called it a "narrow back door," which is probably the most accurate description.

    The EFF has become a fund-raising organization. They have consistently
    and repeatedly overstated and lied about numerous things in order to
    fearmonger to fill their coffers.

    "All it would take to widen the narrow backdoor that Apple is building
    is an expansion of the machine learning parameters to look for

    And there is the lie. Right there, in plain sight. They are
    intentionally and knowingly mixing up tow thing to mislead their readers
    into panic and donations to the EFF.


    --
    Polexia: Let's deflower the kid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to sms on Sat Sep 18 20:59:06 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si5c04$oia$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/13/2021 6:20 PM, Ant wrote:
    In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
    In message <4audnWR8JIV_EKL8nZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212807 for v14.8's release notes.

    Next, v15? ;)

    Yes, we already know iOS 15 will be released soon as some of us have
    been running the beta for months. Could be tomorrow, more likely Friday
    or next Week, depends on which schedule Apple chooses and when the new
    phones will actually be in customer's hands,

    How's v15 so far? Stable enough?

    I used to have automatic updates enabled on all my Apple devices
    (iPhone, iPad, Watch). Now I'm a little more cautious. Just like you
    should not buy a new device until a few months after it's released,

    Nonsense.

    you now should probably wait a bit prior to installing iOS updates
    until they can be vetted by independent sources.

    More nonsense. Millions of people have been using iOS 15 for months. If
    you want to be super cautious, you could wait a day or two. Beyond that
    is paranoia and silliness.


    --
    Q: What's the difference between a civil engineer and a military engineer?
    A: A military engineer designs weapons, and a civil engineer designs targets.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wilf@21:1/5 to Lewis on Sat Sep 18 22:18:46 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 18/09/2021 at 21:59, Lewis wrote:
    In message <si5c04$oia$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/13/2021 6:20 PM, Ant wrote:
    In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
    In message <4audnWR8JIV_EKL8nZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212807 for v14.8's release notes.

    Next, v15? ;)

    Yes, we already know iOS 15 will be released soon as some of us have
    been running the beta for months. Could be tomorrow, more likely Friday >>>> or next Week, depends on which schedule Apple chooses and when the new >>>> phones will actually be in customer's hands,

    How's v15 so far? Stable enough?

    I used to have automatic updates enabled on all my Apple devices
    (iPhone, iPad, Watch). Now I'm a little more cautious. Just like you
    should not buy a new device until a few months after it's released,

    Nonsense.

    you now should probably wait a bit prior to installing iOS updates
    until they can be vetted by independent sources.

    More nonsense. Millions of people have been using iOS 15 for months. If
    you want to be super cautious, you could wait a day or two. Beyond that
    is paranoia and silliness.



    I have to say that I don't normally wait before applying iOS updates
    and, so far, have never had a problem. Probably tempting fate now !!

    --
    Wilf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to Wilf on Sat Sep 18 21:20:53 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <shvvpm$11i8$3@gioia.aioe.org> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
    On 16/09/2021 at 16:03, Lewis 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.

    Might that just be semantics, though? Ok, so if a back door is something hidden, then this is not a back door per se. Maybe a 'Front Door'? But
    it could allow governments to insist that other hashes be included in
    the database used to identify offending pictures.

    Back door has several criteria, not a singl one is matched by the CSAM
    system

    *) A hidden feature or bug
    *) Allow unauthorized access
    *) Allows surreptitious access
    *) allows accessing the data on the computer or device

    --
    There's a race of men that don't fit in, A race that can't stay still
    So they break the hearts of kith and kin, And they roam the world
    at will.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to sms on Sat Sep 18 21:23:43 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si3ao8$pmv$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/17/2021 4:16 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:

    <snip>

    Is it only Lewis who is still unaware both types of on the phone scanning
    were to be released by Apple under the same public relations blitz campaign?

    No, he, as well as all the others trying to defend this, are well aware
    that what they are saying is untrue.

    You are, as always, full of shit.

    You and the other troll morons are intentionally conflating two entire different things.


    --
    It was easy to be a vegetarian by day. It was preventing yourself
    from becoming a humanitarian at night that took the real effort.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to nospam on Sat Sep 18 21:26:37 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <160920211427388492%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <al56vbi12fdr$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    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.

    Malware writers don't have to agree to anything to open these back doors.

    what part of there is no backdoor is not clear?

    read the white papers on how it actually works and why there is no
    backdoor.

    HE CAN'T READ! All those words, some of them are SIX LETTERS LONG! Some
    are even longer!


    --
    Never age. Never die. Live for ever in that one last white-hot
    moment, when the crowd screamed. When every note was a heartbeat.
    Burn across the sky. You will never grow old. They will never say
    you died. --Soul Music

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Sat Sep 18 21:36:08 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <rhm05wy47vuc.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnska16n.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    Governments & malware writers are probably still working on expanding the >>> back doors

    You have no clue what you are talking about.

    How can you still be unaware of everything the security experts have said?

    YOU have no clue what YOU are talking about.

    You have decided to cloak
    yourself in ignorance and refuse to do anything but spew the same
    ignorant misinformed and completely wrong information over and over.

    How can you still be unaware what a hundred privacy organizations have said?

    YOU have no clue what YOU are talking about.

    Apple said they always follow the law in every country they sell phones.

    And as you have been asked over and over again, which law are you
    talking about? An imaginary law?

    How can you still be unaware Tim Cook said Apple follows all local laws?

    YOU have no clue what YOU are talking about.

    You are aware that CSAM scanning is already being done by all hosts,
    right? Apple has been the outlier because they wanted a system that
    preserves privacy, but we have these anti-privacy cunts screaming about
    how bad Apple's system is.

    Why is it that it's only you who is unaware of Apple's broken promises?

    YOU have no clue what YOU are talking about.

    It's very simple, if you think scanning photos on the server is "better"
    you are an advocate for no-privacy.

    Are you still unaware Apple acted as an active branch of local authorities?

    YOU have no clue what YOU are talking about.

    --
    I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather did, not screaming in
    terror like his passengers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Lewis on Sat Sep 18 21:55:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
    I used to have automatic updates enabled on all my Apple devices
    (iPhone, iPad, Watch). Now I'm a little more cautious. Just like you
    should not buy a new device until a few months after it's released,

    Nonsense.

    Apologists are supremely ignorant of almost everything, including updates.

    Luckily iOS gives you the _choice_ to update the security of the iPhone when and if you want to (all my iPads are left on the iOS they were born with).

    Unfortunately, after Android 6 released, Android now updates _all_ Android phones (from Android 6 & up) completely automatically (without asking!).

    That means all Android phones from October 5, 2015 (six years ago!) have had their security updated, automatically, without most users even knowing it!

    While apologists are ignorant how even iOS is updated, they're certainly completely ignorant of the fact Android updates almost the entire operating system over the Google Play Services app (which released 10/5/2015).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Sat Sep 18 21:39:45 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <3h68kg6uvwxt$.dlg@news.solani.org> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 17, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnsk8fik.2j62.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    If you are concerned about your kiddie porn, turn off iCloud photos.

    How does anything you do stop malevolent governments & malware writers?

    Because of idiots like you and irresponsible "journalists" and
    clickbait sites we may well end up with a much worse and much less
    secure system. Thanks, dumbshits. You all suck.

    Why do you think everyone who cares about privacy is a dumbshit who sucks?

    You have made you opposition to privacy quite clear. You are an
    anti-privacy kook.

    --
    'A man like that could inspire a handful of broken men to conquer a
    country.' 'Fine. Just so long as he does it on his day off.'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Wilf on Sat Sep 18 22:02:45 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> asked
    I have to say that I don't normally wait before applying iOS updates
    and, so far, have never had a problem. Probably tempting fate now !!

    Do any of these ignorant apologists know how awful iOS 13 & 14 were?

    *Apple iOS 13 Is Full Of Bugs*
    <https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/09/19/apple-ios13-upgrade-problems-iphone-11-pro-max-xs-max-xr-update>

    What scares me is that people as ignorant as this Wilf... actually exist.
    *Why is iOS 14 so bad?*
    <https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-is-ios-14-so-bad/>

    Who is _that_ stupid that they don't know the sordid history of iOS 13 & 14?
    *Apple software engineer explains why iOS has so many bugs*
    <https://iphonewired.com/news/5169/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Sat Sep 18 14:36:10 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 18, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnskcm6v.ot1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    You and the other troll morons are intentionally conflating two entire different things.

    Which of those "entirely different things" is not scanning on the iPhone?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Sat Sep 18 14:34:22 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 18, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnskcllf.ot1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    How can you still be so unaware of the real issue here with bad parents?

    Which is why the parental notification only exists for children who re
    12yo and under.

    Your reply shows you can repeat the Apple PR blitz but the question is how
    can you (& Apple) still be unaware of what experts say the privacy issue is?

    Do you know what the privacy issue is with iMessage scanning on the iPhone?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Sat Sep 18 14:44:22 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 18, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnskcm1l.ot1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    Back door has several criteria, not a singl one is matched by the CSAM
    system
    *) A hidden feature or bug
    *) Allow unauthorized access
    *) Allows surreptitious access
    *) allows accessing the data on the computer or device

    When will you realize real privacy experts & privacy organizations have
    shown all those criteria will happen by malevolent governments, parents,
    & malware developers after Apple puts these two new back doors into billions
    of iPhones around the world?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Sat Sep 18 14:39:46 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 18, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnskcmcd.ot1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    HE CAN'T READ! All those words, some of them are SIX LETTERS LONG!
    Some are even longer!

    At what time will you understand that Apple centric PR spin in Apple's white papers isn't what matters to real privacy experts & privacy organizations?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Lewis on Sat Sep 18 14:49:06 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 18, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnskcl7j.ot1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    The EFF has become a fund-raising organization. They have consistently
    and repeatedly overstated and lied about numerous things in order to fearmonger to fill their coffers.

    You have successfully negated everything the EFF has or will ever say.
    Now how are you going to do that with the other 99 privacy organizations?

    "All it would take to widen the narrow backdoor that Apple is building
    is an expansion of the machine learning parameters to look for

    And there is the lie. Right there, in plain sight. They are
    intentionally and knowingly mixing up tow thing to mislead their readers
    into panic and donations to the EFF.

    How is it you know more about privacy than a hundred privacy organizations?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to sms on Sun Sep 19 00:40:36 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-18, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/16/2021 1:49 PM, badgolferman wrote:

    <snip>

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

    We all know what the eventual outcome of all this is going to be.
    Apple will scan unencrypted files on their servers, which is what
    other companies, like Facebook, already do.

    Nope. Apple wouldn't be going through all of this trouble if they wanted
    to decrypt iCloud data on their servers.

    Apple can still use the CSAM hashes, but on their servers, not on
    users’ devices.i

    You don't have any authority over Apple, dipshit troll.

    In a few months this whole debacle will fall out of the news cycle and dipshit trolls like me will have find a new chew toy.

    Yep.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Sat Sep 18 20:44:07 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si5gmj$uk2$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:


    We all know what the eventual outcome of all this is going to be.

    nobody outside of a very small group of people within apple know what
    it will be.

    you certainly do not.

    Apple
    will scan unencrypted files on their servers, which is what other
    companies, like Facebook, already do.

    except that icloud is encrypted, so no.

    wanting apple to do what facebook does is abhorrent.

    Apple can still use the CSAM hashes, but on their servers, not on users devices. They can state something like: our researchers invented a new
    way to scan for CSAM using our servers so we no longer have a need to
    scan on devices.

    it's not possible to scan server-side while maintaining user privacy, a
    benefit even you said was important.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Sun Sep 19 00:41:52 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-18, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

    Apple scares me

    True.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net on Sat Sep 18 21:41:31 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si6471$gnc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

    Apple already scans uploaded photos.

    they do not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 01:36:40 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    except that icloud is encrypted, so no.

    It's telling nospam is ignorant that Apple already scans uploaded photos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Sun Sep 19 01:39:28 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
    True.

    Adults will notice apologists like Jolly Roger own imaginary belief systems.

    The _instant_ facts are presented (about iOS bugs), they turn into instant kindergarten children.

    Much like a fifth-grade bully told that Santa Claus is a marketing creation.
    --
    Every time Jolly Roger posts it's easy to see why he didn't graduate H.S.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Sat Sep 18 19:43:49 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/18/2021 7:26 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    Apple already scans uploaded photos.

    they do not.

    How do you think Apple reports CSAM in your iCloud Mail attachments?

    Apple scans iCloud Mail attachments for CSAM, but they do not yet scan
    iCloud Photos for CSAM. What we will likely see once the "delay" is
    over, is server side scanning of photos for CSAM, using the hash
    technique that they initially wanted to put on people's phones.

    The usual way to detect CSAM is to scan uploaded photos. This is what
    Google and Facebook already do, and what Apple is expected to do soon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 02:26:19 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    Apple already scans uploaded photos.

    they do not.

    How do you think Apple reports CSAM in your iCloud Mail attachments?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Sat Sep 18 21:00:03 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/18/2021 8:29 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

    <snip>

    Does anyone notice conspicuously missing from that E2EE list above of what Apple doesn't have the key for, based on Apple's own documents, are:
    iMessages (in your iCloud Backup)
    iCloud Photo Library

    That is correct, but the same situation exists for other cloud storage.
    Of course you're free to encrypt your photos, or anything else,
    yourself, and upload the files to the cloud, without using Google Photos
    or iCloud photos. Then Google or Apple won't have the key.

    The lack of security for iMessages is because the end-to-end encryption key for your Messages data is actually stored in your iCloud Backup. Only if you disable iCloud Backups is a new key automatically generated (which only then would make Messages in the Cloud more secure, but only if you leave iCloud Backups permanently off).

    Your iCloud Backups and your iCloud Photo Library are merely 'encrypted at rest' which means that although they are stored on Apple's servers in a generic encrypted form, Apple has full and complete access to that generic encryption key which they can use for any purpose they want to use it for.

    That is correct. That is necessary in order for the cloud provider to be
    able to scan your photo library.

    It's likely that the NCMEC was upset that they were receiving so few
    reports of CSAM from Apple (since Apple is not scanning iPhoto storage). Instead of following the usual practice of scanning uploaded photos and comparing them against a database of CSAM images, Apple decided that the
    CSAM scanning should occur on users' phones. There are theories of why
    they thought this was better, including reducing the load on their
    servers, but no explanation from Apple why they could not follow the
    lead of Google and Facebook and do server-side scanning. They didn't
    think through the potential for abuse of the client side scanning.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net on Sat Sep 18 23:42:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si6744$1i8u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

    Apple already scans uploaded photos.

    they do not.

    How do you think Apple reports CSAM in your iCloud Mail attachments?

    icloud photos is not the same as email

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Sat Sep 18 23:42:17 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si6857$fnu$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:


    The usual way to detect CSAM is to scan uploaded photos.

    that's what apple was planning on doing.

    This is what
    Google and Facebook already do,

    they scan on their servers, which violates user privacy, plus they scan
    for much, much more than csam. not what apple wants.

    and what Apple is expected to do soon.

    no.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to sms on Sun Sep 19 03:29:00 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
    How do you think Apple reports CSAM in your iCloud Mail attachments?

    Apple scans iCloud Mail attachments for CSAM, but they do not yet scan
    iCloud Photos for CSAM. What we will likely see once the "delay" is
    over, is server side scanning of photos for CSAM, using the hash
    technique that they initially wanted to put on people's phones.

    The only iCloud data Apple can't routinely read are in the following areas:
    Apple Card transactions
    Home data
    Health data
    iCloud Keychain (saved accounts & passwords)
    Maps Favorites, Collections, and search history
    Memoji
    Payment information
    QuickType Keyboard learned vocabulary
    Safari History and iCloud Tabs
    Screen Time
    Siri information (although temps in Ireland were listening)
    Wi-Fi passwords
    W1 and H1 Bluetooth keys for AirPods and Beats Headphones

    Most of these weren't stored encrypted until later versions of iOS.
    For example, Maps and Safari data are only encrypted in iOS 13+.

    The usual way to detect CSAM is to scan uploaded photos. This is what
    Google and Facebook already do, and what Apple is expected to do soon.

    Does anyone notice conspicuously missing from that E2EE list above of what Apple doesn't have the key for, based on Apple's own documents, are:
    iMessages (in your iCloud Backup)
    iCloud Photo Library

    The lack of security for iMessages is because the end-to-end encryption key
    for your Messages data is actually stored in your iCloud Backup. Only if you disable iCloud Backups is a new key automatically generated (which only then would make Messages in the Cloud more secure, but only if you leave iCloud Backups permanently off).

    Your iCloud Backups and your iCloud Photo Library are merely 'encrypted at rest' which means that although they are stored on Apple's servers in a
    generic encrypted form, Apple has full and complete access to that generic encryption key which they can use for any purpose they want to use it for.
    --
    What's revealing is how little the apologists know of their own claims.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Sun Sep 19 00:09:59 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si6ck5$jb2$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    It's likely that the NCMEC was upset that they were receiving so few
    reports of CSAM from Apple (since Apple is not scanning iPhoto storage).

    no.

    Instead of following the usual practice of scanning uploaded photos and comparing them against a database of CSAM images, Apple decided that the
    CSAM scanning should occur on users' phones.

    for very good reasons, which have been explained many times.

    There are theories of why
    they thought this was better, including reducing the load on their
    servers,

    that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory and you know it.

    there's no need to guess why when it's quite obvious to anyone who read
    about how it actually works (i.e., not you).

    but no explanation from Apple why they could not follow the
    lead of Google and Facebook and do server-side scanning

    wrong. there was a very good explanation directly from apple.

    . They didn't
    think through the potential for abuse of the client side scanning.

    wrong. it's designed so it is almost impossible to abuse.

    you're trolling as usual.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 05:49:21 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    there was a very good explanation directly from apple.

    *Nobody lies like Apple lies.*
    It ceases to be shocking that you _believe_ all the bullshit from Apple.

    The "you're holding it wrong" bullshit, and the "battery chemistry"
    bullshit, and the lack of basic accessories "for the environment" bullshit
    is all bullshit from Apple that only the ignorati could possibly believe.

    Certainly privacy experts and organizations around the world didn't believe Apple's bullshit because they know what the whole world knows about Apple.

    *Nobody lies like Apple lies.*
    --
    The _only_ time Apple ever tells the truth is when forced to, in court.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to sms on Sun Sep 19 06:10:02 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
    It's likely that the NCMEC was upset that they were receiving so few
    reports of CSAM from Apple (since Apple is not scanning iPhoto storage).

    Knowing full well the only time Apple ever tells the truth is when they're forced to, in court, we may never know what Apple was thinking they'd gain
    with this stupid idea of scanning iMessages and photos on your iPhone.

    All we know is a hundred privacy organizations and many privacy experts
    around the world have criticized Apple for what is clearly a dumb move.

    Given Apple does everything purely for profit and for no other reason
    (nothing wrong with that - we just need to understand that is Apple's only motive - but Apple tries to hide that fact - which is why Apple is caught
    lying so much to the public)...

    ...If we ever do figure out what Apple's real intent was, we should let everyone know, but for now, I suspect it was similar in intent when Cuomo teamed up with AOL & AT&T to kill their nntp servers (for the kiddies).

    *Cuomo: AT&T and AOL block child porn newsgroups* <https://www.smh.com.au/technology/cuomo-att-and-aol-block-child-porn-newsgroups-20080711-3dlc.html>

    *More ISPs agree to cut off Usenet in response to Cuomo pressure* <https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/12/more-ny-isps-agree-to-cut-off-usenet-access-in-response-to-pressure-from-attorney-general/>

    *Cuomo: AT&T and AOL block newsgroups and sites* <https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/andrew-cuomo-t-aol-block-child-porn-newsgroups-sites-article-1.347677>

    *ISPs to Board Up Big Chunk of Usenet in Child Porn Crusade* <https://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/63782.html>

    *AT&T Closes its Remaining Usenet Access* <https://www.tomsguide.com/us/AT-T-Usenet-Access-Closed,news-4055.html>

    *N.Y. AG says AOL will curb access to Usenet.* <https://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-ag-says-aol-will-curb-access-to-usenet-it-already-did/>

    Luckily that stopped child porn dead in its tracks, those clever politicians like Cuomo and those clever businesspeople running AT&T and AOL.
    --
    The main problem with the apologists is they don't own independent thought.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Sun Sep 19 12:20:01 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 18, 2021, Lewis wrote
    (in article<news:slrnskcm1l.ot1.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):
    Back door has several criteria, not a singl one is matched by the CSAM
    system
    *) A hidden feature or bug
    *) Allow unauthorized access
    *) Allows surreptitious access
    *) allows accessing the data on the computer or device

    When will you realize real privacy experts & privacy organizations have
    shown all those criteria will happen by malevolent governments, parents,
    & malware developers after Apple puts these two new back doors into billions of iPhones around the world?

    They've not shown anything. They've theorised based on hypotheticals.

    It isn't an absolute truth that those things will ever actually happen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to sms on Sun Sep 19 13:47:11 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    Matthew Green suggested in an article in Wired: “If they feel they
    must scan, they should scan unencrypted files on their servers,”

    Which is STUPID. It means that Apple will have to decrypt all user data
    on iCloud, and that is something they do not want to do, for obvious
    reasons.

    which is the standard practice for other companies

    that steal user images to train their ML models and to use in their advertising.

    Facebook, which regularly scan for not only CSAM but also terroristic
    and other disallowed content types. Green also suggests that Apple
    should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it can’t view those images even if it wanted to."

    So, they should scan server side but make it impossible to scan
    server-side at the same time? I have a feeling you are misrepresenting
    Mr Green, or you failed to comprehend all the words.

    Here's the two facts that people need to reconcile:

    1) Images WILL be scanned for CSAM. Period, end of discussion.
    Apple is not going to be the sole outlier in scanning cloud
    data for CSAM images.

    2) Apple wants to be able to store ONLY encrypted user data.

    There, those are the two facts. Now, come up with a better system than
    the one Apple has developed to fit those two facts.

    See: <https://www.wired.com/story/apple-icloud-photo-scan-csam-pause-backlash/>.

    That article is not by Matthew Green. Perhaps you should go find what
    Green actually said instead of taking some quotes that are quite
    probably out-of-context and somewhat screwed up by the author of that
    article.


    --
    Man beats meat, loses fight, gets the girl.
    (Rocky)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 13:48:33 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <170920211008539736%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si1mbn$u1i$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    What's more likely is that they end up doing is what Johns Hopkins
    University cryptographer Matthew Green suggested in an article in Wired:
    ³If they feel they must scan, they should scan unencrypted files on
    their servers,² which is the standard practice for other companies, like
    Facebook, which regularly scan for not only CSAM but also terroristic
    and other disallowed content types.

    wanting apple to be like facebook is abhorrent.

    scanning on the servers violates the user's privacy, which is what
    apple wants to avoid.

    Green also suggests that Apple
    should make iCloud storage end-to-end encrypted, so that it can¹t view
    those images even if it wanted to."

    matthew green is not very smart

    No, he is.

    icloud is already encrypted, which prevents scanning server-side. they
    are two incompatible concepts.

    Which makes me think this is a reporter fuck-up.

    apple's csam system is designed so that images can be checked *and*
    still continue with icloud being fully encrypted.

    Yep.


    --
    THERE'S JUST ME, said Death. THE FINAL FRONTIER. --Moving Pictures

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to Joerg Lorenz on Sun Sep 19 13:49:47 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si294q$qg9$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
    iCloud encryption is nothing that really matters. It is PR-bullshit.

    And there, the anti-privacy kook reveals himself. Again.



    --
    "Kill yourself and roll a rogue. We'll wait"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 19 10:52:42 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si79th$f4q$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    Back door has several criteria, not a singl one is matched by the CSAM
    system
    *) A hidden feature or bug
    *) Allow unauthorized access
    *) Allows surreptitious access
    *) allows accessing the data on the computer or device

    When will you realize real privacy experts & privacy organizations have shown all those criteria will happen by malevolent governments, parents,
    & malware developers after Apple puts these two new back doors into billions
    of iPhones around the world?

    They've not shown anything.

    actually, those who make such claims have shown that they are ignorant
    about what a backdoor is or how apple's system works, and have zero
    interest in learning.

    They've theorised based on hypotheticals.

    ones which do not apply because apple's system was designed to avoid
    such scenarios.

    It isn't an absolute truth that those things will ever actually happen.

    on the other hand, it's close to an absolute truth that they won't
    happen because the obstacles needed to overcome are very, very high.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Sun Sep 19 09:29:27 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/18/2021 11:10 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
    It's likely that the NCMEC was upset that they were receiving so few
    reports of CSAM from Apple (since Apple is not scanning iPhoto storage).

    Knowing full well the only time Apple ever tells the truth is when they're forced to, in court, we may never know what Apple was thinking they'd gain with this stupid idea of scanning iMessages and photos on your iPhone.

    The reason is pretty clear. When they scan iCloud photos on the server,
    they have to decrypt them prior to applying the hash. It would be less burdensome to scan the unencrypted photos on the device to look for
    CSAM. We're talking about hundreds of millions of photos per day to be
    scanned. Meanwhile you have the Bionic processor in the phone with a
    huge surplus of processing power.

    All we know is a hundred privacy organizations and many privacy experts around the world have criticized Apple for what is clearly a dumb move.

    It was not CSAM, per se, that the privacy and human rights organizations
    were concerned about, it was the potential for abuse by other entities
    that would no doubt demand on-device scanning for other things.
    Assurances by Apple that they would never comply with such requests fell
    on deaf ears, due to past history, see <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html>.

    Perhaps the belief was that since the photos would be scanned no matter
    what, no one would care if it was done on the phone versus on the server.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 18:37:46 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    on the other hand, it's close to an absolute truth that they won't
    happen because the obstacles needed to overcome are very, very high.

    How many zero-click zero-day holes are in your iPhone at this moment,
    nospam?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 18:50:03 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    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.

    For once, nospam got it right...

    What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
    1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
    2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    Never forget Apple spends the least in R&D than all high tech companies.
    Apple is all marketing (with concomitant huge profits as a direct result).

    Bearing in mind Apple marketing is arguably the finest in the world, one has
    to wonder why Apple didn't ask even a single privacy organization (out of hundreds) what _they_ thought of this hare-brained idea marketing cooked up.

    Likewise, one has to wonder why Apple marketing didn't ask even a _single_ privacy expert (as far as we know) what _they_ thought of this marketing
    idea.

    Why?

    Why did the smartest marketing org on the planet do something _that_ stupid?
    --
    Something is fishy here as Apple marketing isn't usually this stupid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Sun Sep 19 14:52:57 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si7oh8$gpe$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:


    The reason is pretty clear.

    yet you fail to see it.

    When they scan iCloud photos on the server,
    they have to decrypt them prior to applying the hash.

    thereby violating the user's privacy.

    facebook doesn't care about privacy, so they scan server-side, and for
    much more than just csam.

    apple does not want to do that.

    It would be less
    burdensome to scan the unencrypted photos on the device to look for
    CSAM. We're talking about hundreds of millions of photos per day to be scanned. Meanwhile you have the Bionic processor in the phone with a
    huge surplus of processing power.

    that is a stupid conspiracy theory.

    apple's servers have vastly more powerful processors and i/o bandwidth
    than a phone ever will.

    It was not CSAM, per se, that the privacy and human rights organizations
    were concerned about, it was the potential for abuse by other entities
    that would no doubt demand on-device scanning for other things.

    only because they didn't bother reading how it works and decided to
    grift the stupids.

    why don't those privacy and human rights organizations go after
    facebook and google, who can *easily* expand their search to anything
    at all.

    Assurances by Apple that they would never comply with such requests fell
    on deaf ears, due to past history,

    past history shows that apple does *not* comply and has *zero*
    intention of complying.

    see apple vs doj, where requests to add a backdoor were met with the
    legal equivalent of go fuck yourself.

    not only that, but the apple employees who had the knowledge to
    implement it went on record that if ultimately apple lost the legal
    battle and was forced to do so, they would immediately quit, leaving
    apple unable to comply.

    past history also shows is that facebook, google and others *do* comply
    with such requests, and have *already* done so.

    see

    <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.htm
    .

    not relevant and you don't understand it either.

    Perhaps the belief was that since the photos would be scanned no matter
    what, no one would care if it was done on the phone versus on the server.

    nope. it's because it is the only way to keep the user's photos
    private, which you said was important.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net on Sun Sep 19 14:52:58 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    In article <si80ok$pr9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

    What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
    1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
    2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    i was talking about the eff.

    stop lying.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to sms on Sun Sep 19 18:36:40 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
    The reason is pretty clear. When they scan iCloud photos on the server,
    they have to decrypt them prior to applying the hash.

    This is logical.

    However... other things are as logical (IMHO)... given that...

    There are at least two competing arguments we'd need to hash out before we
    can come to that conclusion that "the reason is pretty clear" why Apple
    chose to do something so stupid (without even asking security experts!)...

    ... given it was "said" (yes, I know it was later found out to be incorrect) that Apple "can" scan the hash of an encrypted file, as long as it was Apple who did the initial encryption. (Whether or not that is technically feasible would matter greatly if this is to be an option).

    The second argument we'd have to hash out is why should Apple actively do anything?

    Why doesn't Apple barge into all our homes to look for contraband?
    Why doesn't Apple track our GPS and report us for speeding?
    Why doesn't Apple take all hit and run accidents and actively report the
    cars in the vicinity of each one, without being specifically asked?

    The number of illegal things Apple "can" scan for is enormous, is it not?

    It would be less
    burdensome to scan the unencrypted photos on the device to look for
    CSAM. We're talking about hundreds of millions of photos per day to be scanned. Meanwhile you have the Bionic processor in the phone with a
    huge surplus of processing power.

    While I certainly "get" that any company would love to offload its computer resources to billions of their captive devices around the world, I can't believe that, if and when Apple decides to become an active arm of law enforcement, that Apple can't spare the server resources. I just can't.

    Apple is an almost purely MARKETING company (they spend almost nothing in
    R&D - it's all marketing).

    Hence, it's logical to believe Apple was hoping, much like Cuomo did, to get
    a MARKETING coup out of doing things "differently" than the other guys do.

    Let's never forget Apple does nothing for good reasons; all that Apple does
    is for Marketing (did I mention Apple's R&D is less than anyone else in high tech yet?)...

    If Apple does it, it's for the MARKETING value. It's never "for the kids." (It's _only_ for the profit that MARKETING garners Apple.)

    *What MARKETING value was Apple _hoping_ to get*... is the real question
    (I believe).

    All we know is a hundred privacy organizations and many privacy experts
    around the world have criticized Apple for what is clearly a dumb move.

    It was not CSAM, per se, that the privacy and human rights organizations
    were concerned about, it was the potential for abuse by other entities
    that would no doubt demand on-device scanning for other things.

    I'm not sure why you said that as we all know this is the case.
    It was a dumb implementation.

    I even ask (see above) why Apple feels so desperate to become an active arm
    of law enforcement.

    Why doesn't Apple actively report all speeders for example?

    Why doesn't Apple actively report people to authorities who sleep in other homes than the ones that they normally sleep in?

    Why doesn't Apple actively report anyone who trespasses in property that
    they don't own?

    What is it that is forcing Apple to become an active arm of law enforcement?

    Assurances by Apple that they would never comply with such requests fell
    on deaf ears, due to past history, see <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html>.

    Apple lies, and you know that.
    Apple only tells the truth in court.

    Even when Apple "says" they follow the law, we clearly know Apple does not.

    Otherwise Apple wouldn't have paid almost a billion dollars last year for
    their public lies (e.g., they backdated release notes and then lied about
    it, just to cover up that they throttled phones to make people buy new ones, which is what they admitted criminal guilt to French criminal prosecutors).

    Perhaps the belief was that since the photos would be scanned no matter
    what, no one would care if it was done on the phone versus on the server.

    Let's never forget Apple is all MARKETING (there's almost no R&D at Apple).

    As with the politician Cuomo (see previous cites), everything Apple does is focused on what MARKETING value Apple can get out of doing it.

    Hence, I think Apple was attempting to get a MARKETING coup out of this.

    I suspect the fact they got intense negative press is the _only_ reason they stopped it.

    But if they were attempting to get MARKETING value out of this stupid move,
    why didn't Apple ask even a single reliable expert or privacy organization?

    It doesn't make sense (to me) for Apple marketing to be _that_ stupid.
    --
    When the news finally reports the _real_ reason, please let us all know.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 21:00:32 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
    1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
    2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    i was talking about the eff.

    Of all the apologists, nospam, you are the least ignorant.

    What tells me you're a bullshitter is you KNOW Apple marketing perfectly!
    1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
    2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    Given Apple did this purely for marketing purposes, it seems rather stupid
    of them to not ask even a _single_ privacy expert what they thought of it.

    Nor did, apparently, Apple marketing ask even a _single_ privacy
    organization what they thought of this stupid idea concocted by marketing.

    What's odd is that Apple marketing is not normally this stupid.
    Which leads me to believe there's more to this story than what we know.
    --
    Never forget nobody in tech spends LESS than does Apple in actual R&D.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Chris on Sun Sep 19 12:55:25 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 19, 2021, Chris wrote
    (in article<news:si79th$f4q$2@dont-email.me>):
    These concerns also need to be balanced against the potential benefit of
    both reducing the dissemination of CSAM and additional harms to children.

    What evidence exists anywhere this will have any effect on children at all?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Sun Sep 19 21:52:20 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 19, 2021, Chris wrote
    (in article<news:si79th$f4q$2@dont-email.me>):
    These concerns also need to be balanced against the potential benefit of
    both reducing the dissemination of CSAM and additional harms to children.

    What evidence exists anywhere this will have any effect on children at all?

    Define "this".

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me on Sun Sep 19 18:29:42 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <slrnskfdjm.2ii8.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:


    facebook doesn't care about privacy, so they scan server-side, and for
    much more than just csam.

    And then use your images to create advertisements fr you, leaving you to believe that your contact are endorsing products Facebook is shilling.
    Why anyone uses Facebook of anything is beyond me, they are easily the
    worst company in the world, and dedicated to violating every users
    privacy in every possible way by any possible means. The fuckers even
    created a fake VPN so they could intercept every bit of data from people
    dumb enough to use that VPN.

    which apple quickly shut down, going so far to pull their enterprise
    cert, which caused their own internal apps to stop working.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 22:15:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <190920211452572811%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si7oh8$gpe$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:


    The reason is pretty clear.

    yet you fail to see it.

    When they scan iCloud photos on the server,
    they have to decrypt them prior to applying the hash.

    thereby violating the user's privacy.

    facebook doesn't care about privacy, so they scan server-side, and for
    much more than just csam.

    And then use your images to create advertisements fr you, leaving you to believe that your contact are endorsing products Facebook is shilling.
    Why anyone uses Facebook of anything is beyond me, they are easily the
    worst company in the world, and dedicated to violating every users
    privacy in every possible way by any possible means. The fuckers even
    created a fake VPN so they could intercept every bit of data from people
    dumb enough to use that VPN.

    apple does not want to do that.

    Of course not, they actually care about privacy, unlike all these shill
    trolls in these newsgroups.

    It was not CSAM, per se, that the privacy and human rights organizations
    were concerned about, it was the potential for abuse by other entities
    that would no doubt demand on-device scanning for other things.

    only because they didn't bother reading how it works and decided to
    grift the stupids.

    Yep.

    why don't those privacy and human rights organizations go after
    facebook and google, who can *easily* expand their search to anything
    at all.

    Because they won't get headlines, everyone know facebook and google are
    shit.

    Assurances by Apple that they would never comply with such requests fell
    on deaf ears, due to past history,

    What past history? Be specific.

    past history shows that apple does *not* comply and has *zero*
    intention of complying.

    Exactly. People also seem to misunderstand that this scanning for CSAM
    is looking for SPECIFIC images. It would be basically useless for a
    widespread system of trying to ban types of images.

    past history also shows is that facebook, google and others *do* comply
    with such requests, and have *already* done so.

    Perhaps the belief was that since the photos would be scanned no matter
    what, no one would care if it was done on the phone versus on the server.

    nope. it's because it is the only way to keep the user's photos
    private, which you said was important.

    The trolls obviously do not care about privacy. They want all data to be unencrypted and scanned on server.


    --
    'What is this thing, anyway?' said the Dean, inspecting the implement
    in his hands. 'It's called a shovel', said the Senior Wrangler.
    'I've seen the gardeners use them. You stick the sharp end in the
    ground. Then it gets a bit technical.' --Reaper Man

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Sun Sep 19 17:20:26 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 9/19/2021 11:36 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
    The reason is pretty clear. When they scan iCloud photos on the server,
    they have to decrypt them prior to applying the hash.

    This is logical.

    However... other things are as logical (IMHO)... given that...

    There are at least two competing arguments we'd need to hash out before we can come to that conclusion that "the reason is pretty clear" why Apple
    chose to do something so stupid (without even asking security experts!)...

    ... given it was "said" (yes, I know it was later found out to be incorrect) that Apple "can" scan the hash of an encrypted file, as long as it was Apple who did the initial encryption. (Whether or not that is technically feasible would matter greatly if this is to be an option).

    Yeah, I wondered about that too, but I don't think that scanning the
    hash would work. A completely different hash could be generated from essentially the same image based on very minor differences in the image.

    The second argument we'd have to hash out is why should Apple actively do anything?

    Because other cloud service providers already do CSAM detection on their servers.

    <snip>

    While I certainly "get" that any company would love to offload its computer resources to billions of their captive devices around the world, I can't believe that, if and when Apple decides to become an active arm of law enforcement, that Apple can't spare the server resources. I just can't.
    A "compute server" or "GPU server" is a different animal than a storage
    server, it's designed with multiple high-power Xeon or EPYC, and Nvidia
    Ampere processors. It's understandable why Apple wanted to offload the
    photo scanning to users' devices.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to sms on Mon Sep 20 00:34:10 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-20, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    Yeah, I wondered about that too, but I don't think that scanning the
    hash would work. A completely different hash could be generated from essentially the same image based on very minor differences in the image.

    Admit to the world that private set intersection is completely over your
    head without saying "private set intersection is completely over my
    head". : D

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to sms on Mon Sep 20 00:31:47 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    On 2021-09-20, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/19/2021 11:50 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked

    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.

    For once, nospam got it right...

    What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so
    well. 1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and, 2.
    *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    He got #1 right anyway

    He wasn't talking about Apple, and you both know that. And anyone who
    can read can see he was talking about the *EFF* above. Your trolls are
    just plain lame.

    but I doubt if anyone ever believed that they would gain popularity
    from their proposal. If they didn't anticipate the negative reaction

    Again, as anyone who can read knows, he was talking about the *EFF* who
    looked at public perception ad thought they could gain popularity. The
    fact that you complete dipshit trolls think you can falsify what others
    say here without anyone else noticing says way more about *you* than
    nospam or anyone else. You argue in bad faith, misconstrue, and falsify
    things other people say because it's the only way you can function -
    rational, honest, fact-based discussions are literally beyond your
    means. You are just fucking pathetic.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Sun Sep 19 17:23:27 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    On 9/19/2021 11:50 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    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.

    For once, nospam got it right...

    What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
    1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
    2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    He got #1 right anyway, but I doubt if anyone ever believed that they
    would gain popularity from their proposal. If they didn't anticipate the negative reaction from hundreds of privacy organizations and millions of
    end users, then that's something they need to look into.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Sun Sep 19 20:34:33 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si8k4b$d4m$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    A completely different hash could be generated from
    essentially the same image based on very minor differences in the image.

    yet another thing you don't understand about apple's csam.

    apple's neural hash is designed specifically to avoid alterations to
    the images.


    Because other cloud service providers already do CSAM detection on their servers.

    other providers scan for much more than just csam and can easily be
    forced by another entity to scan for even more, the very thing you say
    is so dangerous about what apple proposed.

    apple's system is designed so that other entities *can't* force them to
    scan for other stuff.

    A "compute server" or "GPU server" is a different animal than a storage server, it's designed with multiple high-power Xeon or EPYC, and Nvidia Ampere processors. It's understandable why Apple wanted to offload the
    photo scanning to users' devices.

    completely wrong and an absurd conspiracy theory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net on Sun Sep 19 22:26:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <si8r7r$jpo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

    If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, why should Apple follow them?

    if 'everyone jumped off the brooklyn bridge', then who would be left to
    follow? nobody.

    you haven't thought this through.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to sms on Mon Sep 20 02:21:54 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
    The second argument we'd have to hash out is why should Apple actively do
    anything?

    Because other cloud service providers already do CSAM detection on their servers.

    If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, why should Apple follow them?

    It's understandable why Apple wanted to offload the photo scanning to users' devices.

    Everything Apple does is to artificially differentiate Apple from the rest.

    Had this marketing maneuver worked, it would have been as great a bullshit marketing coup as it was when Apple claimed all off-brand chargers were electrocuting people in their bathtubs.

    The (rather gullible) user base _ate_ that Apple bullshit up... remember?
    But nobody was eating this bullshit this time.

    What's perplexing is _how_ could Apple have thought people were _that_ gullible?

    Nobody is that gullible.
    Are they?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to sms on Sun Sep 19 18:57:24 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 18, 2021, sms wrote
    (in article<news:si5gmj$uk2$1@dont-email.me>):
    We all know what the eventual outcome of all this is going to be. Apple
    will scan unencrypted files on their servers, which is what other
    companies, like Facebook, already do.

    Why does Apple need to change anything from what they're doing today?

    Apple can still use the CSAM hashes, but on their servers

    Doesn't Apple already scan the encrypted messages for known images?

    Repairing the bruised image of NCMEC needs to also be attempted. Their ill-advised message to Apple employees, labeling those who favor privacy
    "the screeching voices of the minority" should never have happened (this
    was an internal memo from Apple quoting a separate memo from NCMEC

    Why does Apple & NCMEC feel privacy experts are the "screeching minority?"

    Hopefully Apple will put procedures in place that will prevent this kind
    of thing in the future. Perhaps set up an advisory committee with participants from leading privacy and human rights organizations to vet anything they plan to add to their devices that affect privacy.

    Why didn't Apple test this idea out with any privacy experts first?

    In a few months this whole debacle will fall out of the news cycle

    Does Apple really think privacy experts are only a "screeching minority?"

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Sun Sep 19 18:41:09 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 20, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqq382Ftcq0U2@mid.individual.net>):
    Admit to the world that private set intersection is completely over your
    head without saying "private set intersection is completely over my
    head". : D

    How did you confuse the issue of on the phone scanning with that of PSI?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to ron@null.invalid on Sun Sep 19 23:16:28 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In article <tx7rvtkj58yb.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
    <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

    Why didn't Apple test this idea out with any privacy experts first?

    they did, along with cryptographic experts and many others.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Chris on Sun Sep 19 21:09:35 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 19, 2021, Chris wrote
    (in article<news:si8bek$c0h$1@dont-email.me>):
    What evidence exists anywhere this will have any effect on children at all?

    Define "this".

    How can you still be unaware of what Apple did?

    Since we already know Apple never asked any privacy organizations nor any privacy experts, then it's obvious that Apple wasn't concerned with privacy.

    What was Apple concerned about then if it isn't privacy?

    What evidence is there that implementing these scans on the phone will have
    any effect on the global amount of illegal photographs in people's
    possession?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to nospam on Sun Sep 19 21:04:14 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 19, 2021, nospam wrote
    (in article<news:190920212316281663%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
    Why didn't Apple test this idea out with any privacy experts first?

    they did, along with cryptographic experts and many others.

    How is it that you are still unaware that cryptography & privacy are
    different issues in this situation?

    A hundred respected privacy organizations weren't consulted by Apple.
    There is no evidence that Apple consulted any respected privacy experts.

    How is it that you can say Apple did without any evidence supporting that?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Sun Sep 19 20:58:27 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 19, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqqhh5F1dqvU1@mid.individual.net>):
    How did you confuse the issue of on the phone scanning with that of
    PSI?

    The only confusion is coming from you, dipshit troll.

    Do you understand the issues or not?

    How is it that you are still unaware that PSI isn't the issue here.

    How can it be that you are unaware that the issue is on the phone scanning?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Mon Sep 20 04:37:57 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2021-09-20, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 20, 2021, Jolly Roger wrote
    (in article<news:iqq382Ftcq0U2@mid.individual.net>):
    Admit to the world that private set intersection is completely over
    your head without saying "private set intersection is completely over
    my head". : D

    How did you confuse the issue of on the phone scanning with that of
    PSI?

    The only confusion is coming from you, dipshit troll.

    Ron, the dizziest troll in town.

    Word.

    --
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Mon Sep 20 08:13:21 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 19, 2021, Chris wrote
    (in article<news:si8bek$c0h$1@dont-email.me>):
    What evidence exists anywhere this will have any effect on children at all? >>
    Define "this".

    How can you still be unaware of what Apple did?

    Since we already know Apple never asked any privacy organizations nor any privacy experts, then it's obvious that Apple wasn't concerned with privacy.

    What was Apple concerned about then if it isn't privacy?

    What evidence is there that implementing these scans on the phone will have any effect on the global amount of illegal photographs in people's possession?

    The point is that law enforcement all over the world are doing everything
    they can to stop this dissemination and catch those involved. Many online services are indirectly involved and they should try to do as much as they
    can to help.

    It's all part of the jigsaw.

    There won't be any evidence until the system is turned on, so impossible to answer right now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Chris on Mon Sep 20 01:49:16 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    On 9/20/2021 1:19 AM, Chris wrote:

    <snip>

    They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many didn't read them or didn't understand them.

    What they actually didn't anticipate was how many people read them,
    understood them, but didn't believe the assertions that the technology
    would not be expanded beyond CSAM. There are lots of governments that
    would love to scan for images of various things, including some very
    wealthy countries that buy a lot of iPhones.

    The whole patronizing attitude of "let us explain to you why what we're
    doing is wonderful," when in fact all the privacy experts, human rights experts, and child protection organizations explained why it's _not_
    wonderful, needs to change. And it did change when the "delay" was
    announced. You know that they're not going to bring back on-device
    scanning and will simply do what other cloud service providers already
    do--scan on the server side.

    You can get the facts here: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life>.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris@21:1/5 to sms on Mon Sep 20 08:19:23 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/19/2021 11:50 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    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.

    For once, nospam got it right...

    What's prescient is how nospam described Apple marketing motives so well.
    1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
    2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    He got #1 right anyway, but I doubt if anyone ever believed that they
    would gain popularity from their proposal. If they didn't anticipate the negative reaction from hundreds of privacy organizations and millions of
    end users, then that's something they need to look into.

    They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully
    describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many didn't read them or didn't understand them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Mon Sep 20 06:35:00 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    In article <si9hud$1lc$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many didn't read them or didn't understand them.

    What they actually didn't anticipate was how many people read them, understood them, but didn't believe the assertions that the technology
    would not be expanded beyond CSAM.

    such assertions are the result of *not* reading and understanding it.

    apple's system is specifically designed so that expanding it is not realistically possible.

    There are lots of governments that
    would love to scan for images of various things, including some very
    wealthy countries that buy a lot of iPhones.

    then why isn't anyone complaining about google, facebook, etc.?

    it's *trivial* to force a company to search for more things on their
    own servers, without anyone ever knowing.

    The whole patronizing attitude of "let us explain to you why what we're
    doing is wonderful," when in fact all the privacy experts, human rights experts, and child protection organizations explained why it's _not_ wonderful, needs to change.

    what needs to change is those groups need to learn how it works rather
    than grift.

    And it did change when the "delay" was
    announced. You know that they're not going to bring back on-device
    scanning and will simply do what other cloud service providers already do--scan on the server side.

    that is absolutely false.

    you just said all those experts are concerned about expanding the
    search, which is easy if done server-side and nearly impossible with
    apple's system.

    You can get the facts here:
    <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2

    no, those are not the facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Chris on Mon Sep 20 08:29:05 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 20, 2021, Chris wrote
    (in article<news:si9g6b$vql$1@dont-email.me>):
    They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many didn't read them or didn't understand them.

    How can you be still unaware malevolent governments and malware writers will not voluntarily restrict themselves to what Apple puts in their white paper?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RonTheGuy@21:1/5 to Chris on Mon Sep 20 09:10:52 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 20, 2021, Chris wrote
    (in article<news:si9fr1$p26$1@dont-email.me>):
    The point is that law enforcement all over the world are doing everything they can to stop this dissemination and catch those involved. Many online services are indirectly involved and they should try to do as much as they can to help.

    Why do you believe scanning messages & photos on your phone is meaningful?

    It's all part of the jigsaw.

    Why do you believe that an Apple "feel good" PR blitz accomplishes anything?

    There won't be any evidence until the system is turned on, so impossible to answer right now.

    What do you think is a meaningfully effective method to combat child abuse?

    Ron, the humblest guy in town.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris@21:1/5 to sms on Mon Sep 20 21:53:31 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/20/2021 1:19 AM, Chris wrote:

    <snip>

    They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully
    describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many >> didn't read them or didn't understand them.

    What they actually didn't anticipate was how many people read them, understood them, but didn't believe the assertions that the technology
    would not be expanded beyond CSAM. There are lots of governments that
    would love to scan for images of various things, including some very
    wealthy countries that buy a lot of iPhones.

    The whole patronizing attitude of "let us explain to you why what we're
    doing is wonderful," when in fact all the privacy experts, human rights experts, and child protection organizations explained why it's _not_ wonderful, needs to change. And it did change when the "delay" was
    announced. You know that they're not going to bring back on-device
    scanning and will simply do what other cloud service providers already do--scan on the server side.

    You can get the facts here: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life>.

    Your loaded language isn't helping.

    There are organisations urging Apple to implement their system. This isn't
    a straightforward issue. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/sep/17/child-abuse-apple-urged-to-roll-out-image-scanning-tool-swiftly

    Like I said upthread it's a balance between harm reduction and data
    privacy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris@21:1/5 to RonTheGuy on Mon Sep 20 21:48:30 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
    On Sep 20, 2021, Chris wrote
    (in article<news:si9g6b$vql$1@dont-email.me>):
    They did. Which is why they published their white papers carefully
    describing the technology. What they perhaps didn't anticipate was how many >> didn't read them or didn't understand them.

    How can you be still unaware malevolent governments and malware writers will not voluntarily restrict themselves to what Apple puts in their white paper?

    Have you read them?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Tue Sep 21 03:08:39 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
    He wasn't talking about Apple, and you both know that. And anyone who
    can read can see he was talking about the *EFF* above. Your trolls are
    just plain lame.

    The iron-clad proof that Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy is the fact that Apple didn't ask even a _single_ privacy expert before rolling it out.

    Given both Jolly Roger & nospam habitually _change_ quoted facts just so
    that they stand a chance of responding to them, I think it's again prescient that both Jolly Roger and nospam agree that Apple did it for two reasons:

    1. *Apple marketing "_didn't look at reality_"*, and,
    2. *Apple marketing wanted to "_gain popularity and profit from it_.*"

    Apple's need to artificially differentiate themselves from the other
    products makes sense, where the issue that makes no sense is why did Apple marketing not even ask a _single_ security professional about their plan?

    And why didn't Apple check in with not a _single_ privacy organization with their plan?

    Notice what this tells us:
    a. Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy.
    b. This isn't about privacy.

    This is about exactly what both nospam and Jolly Roger are upset about:
    1. Apple didn't think this through (because it's not about privacy)
    2. Apple was hoping to gain product differentiation from this effort.

    Again, as anyone who can read knows, he was talking about the *EFF* who looked at public perception ad thought they could gain popularity.

    No. It's about Apple.
    You & nospam blame the EFF (and the entire world) as much as you can.

    But that doesn't change this is about Apple doing two things you said:
    1. Apple didn't even ask privacy experts (it's not well thought out)
    2. Apple did it purely for the marketing value (product differentiation)

    In fact, the proof that Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy is the fact that Apple didn't ask even a _single_ privacy expert before rolling it out.
    --
    If Apple cared about privacy, they would have asked privacy experts first.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to nospam on Tue Sep 21 03:09:01 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
    If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, why should Apple follow them?

    if 'everyone jumped off the brooklyn bridge', then who would be left to follow? nobody.

    you haven't thought this through.

    Apple (via a joint internal memo) proved what they think of "privacy"
    by calling all the privacy experts of the world a "screeching minority."

    I admit I know Apple well enough to know Apple does everything for profit (nothing wrong with that) where Apple will _always_ lie as to their motive.

    Apple spends almost nothing in R&D compared to their Marketing budget for
    one reason and one reason only - which is Apple cares _only_ about profits.

    *Apple throttled secretly and then publicly lied about it for profit only.*

    Apple removed the aux jack so you'd have to buy back the missing
    functionality, just as Apple strategically decided to NEVER give you the
    option of cheap expandable memory (always... never forget, for profit only).

    I don't mind a company cheaping out on their iPHone 12 batteries for profit, but when Apple brazenly lies that they removed the charger
    *"for the environment"*
    then I know Apple is nothing but a bullshitter - just like you are, nospam.

    Given I respect Apple marketing and yet I know Apple _never_ tells the
    truth, what I'm trying to figure out is _why_ Apple did such a dumb thing.

    Why didn't Apple ask even a _single_ security researcher or even a single privacy group if this was a good idea _before_ rolling it out to the world?

    Compounding the problem by calling all privacy experts a "screeching
    minority" shows what Apple _really_ thinks about privacy concerns, nospam.

    What I don't yet understand is...
    Why did the smartest marketing in the world do something THIS stupid?

    There is _more_ to this story that we don't yet know.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Jolly Roger on Tue Sep 21 03:09:21 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
    Admit to the world that private set intersection is completely over your
    head without saying "private set intersection is completely over my
    head". : D

    It's revealing that the (rather gullible) apologists fell for the "private
    set intersection" complete & utter bullshit from the Apple marketing team.

    *Apple's Private Set Intersection "Opens a Backdoor to your Private Life"* <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life>

    "Make no mistake: [private set intersection] is a *decrease in privacy*
    for all iCloud Photos users, not an improvement."
    --
    What's consistent is apologists do NOT own independent thought processes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to nospam on Tue Sep 21 16:20:55 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <190920211829423123%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnskfdjm.2ii8.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:


    facebook doesn't care about privacy, so they scan server-side, and for
    much more than just csam.

    And then use your images to create advertisements fr you, leaving you to
    believe that your contact are endorsing products Facebook is shilling.
    Why anyone uses Facebook of anything is beyond me, they are easily the
    worst company in the world, and dedicated to violating every users
    privacy in every possible way by any possible means. The fuckers even
    created a fake VPN so they could intercept every bit of data from people
    dumb enough to use that VPN.

    which apple quickly shut down, going so far to pull their enterprise
    cert, which caused their own internal apps to stop working.

    For certain values of "quickly", yes. But the point is, this is the sort
    of company facebook is. They are as trustworthy as a scorpion.

    --
    I can't die, I haven't seen The Jolson Story

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to sms on Tue Sep 21 16:29:50 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <si8k4b$d4m$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    On 9/19/2021 11:36 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
    The reason is pretty clear. When they scan iCloud photos on the server,
    they have to decrypt them prior to applying the hash.

    This is logical.

    However... other things are as logical (IMHO)... given that...

    There are at least two competing arguments we'd need to hash out before we >> can come to that conclusion that "the reason is pretty clear" why Apple
    chose to do something so stupid (without even asking security experts!)... >>
    ... given it was "said" (yes, I know it was later found out to be incorrect) >> that Apple "can" scan the hash of an encrypted file, as long as it was Apple >> who did the initial encryption. (Whether or not that is technically feasible >> would matter greatly if this is to be an option).

    Yeah, I wondered about that too, but I don't think that scanning the
    hash would work. A completely different hash could be generated from essentially the same image based on very minor differences in the image.

    The CSAM hashing algorithm is specifically designed to still match
    images that have been altered, cropped, rotated, etc. It is not simply
    a `md5 image.jpg` sort of hash.

    The second argument we'd have to hash out is why should Apple actively do
    anything?

    Because other cloud service providers already do CSAM detection on their servers.

    AND the government is trotting out "protect the children" in their
    efforts to undermine encryption. That said, there is a lot more CSAM out
    there than anyone would have guessed, and the people collecting it will
    have thousands of photos.

    While I certainly "get" that any company would love to offload its computer >> resources to billions of their captive devices around the world, I can't
    believe that, if and when Apple decides to become an active arm of law
    enforcement, that Apple can't spare the server resources. I just can't.

    Of course they have the resources to do the scanning on the servers, but
    there are very very good reasons for not doing that. I would much prefer
    having my data stored ONLY encrypted on Apple's servers with no one by
    me and my designated account recovery person being able to access that
    data than to have all my photos decrypted every time they are sent to
    iCloud and thus have, effectively, no protection at all other than the
    fact that Apple will not decrypt the data.

    And no, the state of iCloud RIGHT NOW is not TNO encryption, and Apple
    right now CAN decrypt the data, but despite the frothing idiots here,
    Apple does NOT do that. And if things go along this trajectory, they
    will not be able to.

    A "compute server" or "GPU server" is a different animal than a storage server, it's designed with multiple high-power Xeon or EPYC, and Nvidia Ampere processors. It's understandable why Apple wanted to offload the
    photo scanning to users' devices.

    That is not why. The processing is trivial.


    --
    WHO KNOWS WHAT EVIL LURKS IN THE HEART OF MEN? The Death of Rats
    looked up from the feast of potato. SQUEAK, he said. Death waved
    a hand dismissively. WELL, YES, OBVIOUSLY *ME*, he said. I JUST
    WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE. --The Truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to sms on Tue Sep 21 16:39:18 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    In message <si9hud$1lc$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
    And it did change when the "delay" was announced. You know that
    they're not going to bring back on-device scanning and will simply do
    what other cloud service providers already do--scan on the server
    side.

    Only anti-privacy morons think this is a good idea.

    --
    Don't be too sure I'm as crooked as I'm supposed to be. ~ Sam Spade

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lewis@21:1/5 to nospam on Tue Sep 21 16:36:03 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    In message <190920212034332561%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <si8k4b$d4m$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    A completely different hash could be generated from
    essentially the same image based on very minor differences in the image.

    yet another thing you don't understand about apple's csam.

    apple's neural hash is designed specifically to avoid alterations to
    the images.

    To be fair, the hashing algorithm itself was developed by Microsoft. It
    is the same system that Dropbox, Amazon, Google, AOL/Yahoo, and dozens,
    if not hundreds, of other companies use to scan for CSAM.

    other providers scan for much more than just csam

    Yes, that too.

    apple's system is designed so that other entities *can't* force them to
    scan for other stuff.

    Apple's system is a lot more complex that just the simple hashing, and
    all of that complexity and the hundreds of engineering hours it took to
    develop that system are all in the service of preserving as much privacy
    as possible while still being able to report pedophiles trafficking in
    CSAM images.

    completely wrong and an absurd conspiracy theory.

    Consider the source of that idiocy.


    --
    "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
    "I think so, Brain, but if the plural of mouse is mice, wouldn't the
    plural of spouse be spice?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Lewis on Tue Sep 21 18:49:32 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
    Only anti-privacy morons think this is a good idea.

    Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

    Can Lewis name even a _single_ privacy organization who thinks this CSAM scanning on your phone & scanning of iMessages is a "good idea?"

    If not, then _everything_ Lewis just claimed is another imaginary belief.
    --
    Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Chris on Tue Sep 21 18:47:46 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.apps

    Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> asked
    There are organisations urging Apple to implement their system.

    Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

    Can Chris name even a _single_ privacy organization "urging Apple to
    implement" this CSAM scanning on your phone & scanning of iMessages?

    If not, then _everything_ Chris just claimed is another imaginary belief.
    --
    Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin Goodfellow@21:1/5 to Lewis on Tue Sep 21 18:52:59 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.system

    Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
    And no, the state of iCloud RIGHT NOW is not TNO encryption, and Apple
    right now CAN decrypt the data, but despite the frothing idiots here,
    Apple does NOT do that.

    *Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly _zero_ (0) actual facts.*

    Can Lewis not be aware that Apple provides decrypted data all the time to
    law enforcement (remember, Apple claims they follow all the local laws)?

    If not, then _everything_ Lewis just claimed is another imaginary belief.
    --
    Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly zero (0) actual facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan Baker@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Tue Sep 21 12:10:07 2021
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.system

    On 2021-09-21 11:52 a.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
    Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
    And no, the state of iCloud RIGHT NOW is not TNO encryption, and Apple
    right now CAN decrypt the data, but despite the frothing idiots here,
    Apple does NOT do that.

    *Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly _zero_ (0) actual facts.*

    Can Lewis not be aware that Apple provides decrypted data all the time to
    law enforcement (remember, Apple claims they follow all the local laws)?

    When the receive a valid warrant, what else would you expect them to do?


    If not, then _everything_ Lewis just claimed is another imaginary belief.

    Since he literally acknowledged that iCloud is not "Trust No One"
    encryption...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Snit@21:1/5 to Robin Goodfellow on Wed Sep 22 08:06:00 2021
    XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sep 21, 2021 at 11:52:59 AM MST, "Robin Goodfellow" wrote <sid9m4$o0c$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

    Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
    And no, the state of iCloud RIGHT NOW is not TNO encryption, and Apple
    right now CAN decrypt the data, but despite the frothing idiots here,
    Apple does NOT do that.

    *Apologists' belief systems are based on exactly _zero_ (0) actual facts.*

    You understand yourself well. Good.


    Can Lewis not be aware that Apple provides decrypted data all the time to
    law enforcement (remember, Apple claims they follow all the local laws)?

    If not, then _everything_ Lewis just claimed is another imaginary belief.


    --
    Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

    They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)