On 8/9/2021 12:06 PM, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/08 12:15 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Comparing a hash of images on your device to hashes of known images of
>> child pornography if and only if you use iCloud Photos.
>
> These weird people don't seem to be able to understand Apple plans to scan
> iMessages for anything it wants to consider objectionable if you let it.
>
> There's no has involved.
> No child porn involved.
> No iCloud involved.
>
> These weird people are blind to the obvious.
> Why are they so blind to what is already documented?

They understand it just fine. Their handlers require that they lie about it.

On 2021/08/08 6:54 pm, badgolferman wrote:
> Why must every single iPhone user be subjected to this intrusion?

Apple is assuming every iPhone owner is doing criminal acts with it.
I think I know why (time will tell if my prophesy is astute).

Remember Apple said they wouldn't put full encryption on their servers?
The FBI made Apple drop full end-to-end encryption on their servers.

"Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

Then remember when Apple claimed half assed encryption on their servers?
The FBI wanted more access.

FBI persuades Apple to drop real encryption
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51207744

So now Apple gives the FBI the backdoor to your iPhone instead.
Apple is now free to finally add full encryption on their own servers.

"Apple opens each iPhone with a backdoor to encryption"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life

What's interesting is the people defending Apple have no perspective.
They only know what Apple says (not what Apple is really doing).

This allows apple to advertise full encryption on their iCloud servers.
Even as there is really no encryption for the user because of the back door.
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

In article <serv2p$8sm$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> They understand it just fine.

yep, they do. it's *you* who does not and refuses to learn about it.

> My handlers require that I lie about it.

ftfy

In article <servh5$h7j$1@news.mixmin.net>, John Robertson
<spam@flippers.com> wrote:

>
> Apple is assuming every iPhone owner is doing criminal acts with it.

for you, that is unquestionably and indisputably true. you've even
admitted to it in public forums, which is not wise.

On 2021-08-09, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/9/2021 12:03 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>> On 2021/08/09 2:59 am, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> It's certainly not ineffective at protecting Apple from liability by
>>> identifying child pornography being uploaded to their servers, which
>>> is what has driven Google, Microsoft, What'sApp, Twitter, Instragam,
>>> and others to do this for a decade or lager before Apple decided to
>>> do it, but with more privacy protections in place.
>>
>> Thid statement above shows these weird people still don't understand
>> it's only Apple who is scanning your personal private data on your
>> own device.
>
> I think that they understand it just fine, they're just looking for
> ways to rationalize the on-device scanning.

The rationalization is that by doing it on the device, Apple does not
have access to the photos in question, preserving your privacy. But that
doesn't fit well with your "Apple: BAD!1!!" narrative, so you refuse to
acknowledge its validity.

"Can you compare the privacy of this system to that of systems that scan
photos for CSAM on the cloud?

Another option for scanning photos for CSAM is to run the scanning
process on the cloud. Doing this at scale requires scanning the images
in the clear. In contrast, the Apple PSI system makes sure that only
encrypted photos are uploaded. Whenever a new image is uploaded, it is
locally processed on the user’s device, and a safety voucher is uploaded
with the photo. Only if a significant number of photos are marked as
CSAM, can Apple fully decrypt their safety vouchers and recover the
information of these photos. Users do not learn if any image is flagged
as CSAM. In conclusion, I believe that the Apple PSI system provides an
excellent balance between privacy and utility, and will be extremely
helpful in identifying CSAM content while maintaining a high level of
user privacy and keeping false positives to a minimum."

~ A Review of the Cryptography Behind the Apple PSI System by Benny
Pinkas, Dept. of Computer Science Bar-Ilan University, July 9, 2021

Writer bio:

"My research in cryptography has spanned more than 25 years. I initiated
the applied research on privacy preserving computation, an area of
cryptography that makes it possible for multiple participants to run
computations while concealing their private inputs. In particular, I
pioneered research on private set intersection (PSI)."

--
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

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 2021-08-08, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/8/2021 4:05 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> But again, I'm waiting to see actual details on the hash.
>>
>> You can be certain that you will not see those actual details.
>
>The details are published. The fact that you and your trollboi friends
>refuse to look at them don't change reality. All you are doing is
>proving you can't be taken seriously by those who know better, loser.

I'm still looking for them and not seeing much.

You have basically two approaches: taking a checksum or some similar
value that can be calculated across any kind of file regardless of
format, or creating a hash based on image features.

The image feature method works very well when dealing with similar
images, and the classic example of this is for fingerprint detection.
You note specific loops and whorls in specific positions, and you can
get a very complex fingerprint down to only a few bytes of data.

The checksum method works very well when dealing with a wide variety
of different formats when you know the files won't be rescaled or
resampled in any way.

In both cases the size of the hash and the hash probabilities make a
huge difference in how effective the thing is, but the actual probabilities
of the feature method are very difficult to calculate whereas the
probabilities of the checksum hash are something we make freshman CS
students do in their data structures class. We don't know which family
of methods is being used here, though.

In general, I will say that technological fixes for social problems
usually don't work. But I don't know enough details about this proposed
fix to say more than that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I had been ignoring this thread, but I saw kludge and decided to
wade in. I'll likely ignore a lot / all of the replies.

In comp.misc, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> The details are published. The fact that you and your trollboi friends
>> refuse to look at them don't change reality. All you are doing is
>> proving you can't be taken seriously by those who know better, loser.
> I'm still looking for them and not seeing much.

https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summary.pdf

> You have basically two approaches: taking a checksum or some similar
> value that can be calculated across any kind of file regardless of
> format, or creating a hash based on image features.

It's the latter. The documentation clearly states it is a "perceptual
hash", which means based on image features.

> The image feature method works very well when dealing with similar
> images, and the classic example of this is for fingerprint detection.
> You note specific loops and whorls in specific positions, and you can
> get a very complex fingerprint down to only a few bytes of data.
....
> In both cases the size of the hash and the hash probabilities make a
> huge difference in how effective the thing is, but the actual probabilities
> of the feature method are very difficult to calculate whereas the
> probabilities of the checksum hash are something we make freshman CS
> students do in their data structures class. We don't know which family
> of methods is being used here, though.

The description of the "neuralhash" doesn't build confidence that it can
known to work exactly as intended. Quoting from Apple's PDF above:

The system generates NeuralHash in two steps. First, an image is
passed into a convolutional neural network to generate an
N-dimensional, floating-point descriptor. Second, the descriptor is
passed through a hashing scheme to convert the N floating-point
numbers to M bits. Here, M is much smaller than the number of bits
needed to represent the N floating-point numbers. NeuralHash
achieves this level of compression and preserves sufficient
information about the image so that matches and lookups on image sets
are still successful, and the compression meets the storage and
transmission requirements.

The neural network that generates the descriptor is trained through a
self-supervised training scheme. Images are perturbed with
transformations that keep them perceptually identical to the
original, creating an original/perturbed pair. The neural network is
taught to generate descriptors that are close to one another for the
original/perturbed pair. Similarly, the network is also taught to
generate descriptors that are farther away from one another for an
original/distractor pair. A distractor is any image that is not
considered identical to the original. Descriptors are considered to
be close to one another if the cosine of the angle between
descriptors is close to 1. The trained network's output is an
N-dimensional, floating-point descriptor. These N floating-point
numbers are hashed using LSH, resulting in M bits. The M-bit LSH
encodes a single bit for each of M hyperplanes, based on whether the
descriptor is to the left or the right of the hyperplane. These M
bits constitute the NeuralHash for the image.

Neural networks are known to have strange hard to predict image
categorization flaws, which is why "adversarial patches" work. Maybe
this system is robust against such attacks, may not. I know which way
I'd bet. I'd much rather a perceptual hash that didn't involve a
"neural" blackbox step.

Elijah
------
didn't find any hint of hash size in the PDF

On 2021-08-09, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> Actually, no. Not at all.
> The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT actions.

If data obtained that way is turned over to the government then it is
not so clear that the 4th Amendment is not involved. (Can you rifle
through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie porn and turn him
in if found?)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2021-08-09 08:33:47 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:

> Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>
>
> Imagine for one instant believing that this will be used solely to nab
> pedophiles. Pedophiles are almost a protected class by this point.
>
> This is about cyber dissidents.

Please stop cross-posting this conspiracy nutter bullshit to the iPhone
newsgroup ... anti-Apple know-nothing Android / Windows trolls are not
wanted here.

On 2021-08-09 11:45 a.m., RJH wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2021 at 6:01:21 PM, "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> You forget that Gmail also scans your email to detect receipts and group
>> them together; they also scan for appointments and adds them to your
>> calendar. Things that some people consider nice features and other
>> people consider unbearable intrusion. I think it can be disabled.
>
> Where is that mail scanning you speak of being performed?
>

On Google's servers of course.

My ISP, Telus, just recently forced all of its customers to start using
their Telus email accounts via Google.

The first thing I noticed was that email that my software wasn't
identifying as spam was ending up in a Junk folder.

The next thing was Google happily informing me that since I had just
been emailed an itinerary for some flights, they would add those flights
to my calendar.

How do you think they do that if they're not reading my mail?

On 2021-08-09 12:03 p.m., John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/09 2:59 am, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> It's certainly not ineffective at protecting Apple from liability by
>> identifying child pornography being uploaded to their servers, which is
>> what has driven Google, Microsoft, What'sApp, Twitter, Instragam, and
>> others to do this for a decade or lager before Apple decided to do it,
>> but with more privacy protections in place.
>
> Thid statement above shows these weird people still don't understand it's
> only Apple who is scanning your personal private data on your own device.

>
> Not Google. Not Microsoft. Not Whatsapp. Not Twitter. Not Instagram.
> Just Apple.

You mean, not that they've TOLD you.

In message <serk4v$e0t$1@dont-email.me> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

>| > it doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
>| > facebook, etc. are not government actors.
>|
>| It also doe not apply to PUBLISHING those photos, which is what you are
>| doing when you upload them top a server.
>|

> ?? Remote storage is not publishing.

Legally, it is.

--
This is now, and now, and now. Live it, feel it, cling to it. I want to become
acutely aware of all I’ve taken for granted.” ― Sylvia Plath

On 2021-08-09 3:25 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2021-08-09, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> Actually, no. Not at all.
>> The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT actions.
>
> If data obtained that way is turned over to the government then it is
> not so clear that the 4th Amendment is not involved. (Can you rifle
> through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie porn and turn him
> in if found?)
>

As a matter of law, yes, you can.

In article <20210809182337@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> > Actually, no. Not at all.
> > The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT actions.
>
> If data obtained that way is turned over to the government then it is
> not so clear that the 4th Amendment is not involved.

it is very clear.

> (Can you rifle
> through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie porn and turn him
> in if found?)

yes.

law enforcement would need a warrant to search.
ordinary citizens do not.

people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair shop
sees child porn, it gets reported.

nospam wrote:
> In article <20210809182337@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, no. Not at all. The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT
>>> actions.
>>
>> If data obtained that way is turned over to the government then it
>> is not so clear that the 4th Amendment is not involved.
>
> it is very clear.
>
>> (Can you rifle through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie
>> porn and turn him in if found?)

> yes.

If you entered your neighbors house without permission you could be
charged with trespassing or burglary.

> law enforcement would need a warrant to search. ordinary citizens do
> not.

If you saw child porn after illegally entering and told the cops they should
then secure the house, get the warrant based on your probable
cause statement, and then get the porn evidence. That should help secure
a charges for both of you.

> people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair shop
> sees child porn, it gets reported.

Quite different from illegally entering someone's home...

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> nospam wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>> But when you buy an iPhone, it comes with a copy of the software
>>>>> already
>>>>> installed, and the copy was authorised by Apple. So you own an
>>>>> authorised copy. There is no need to copy anything[*]. So no licence
>>>>> is
>>>>> required, and any rights that Apple claims to have by virtue of the
>>>>> licence do not exist. Even if you find that you have to click on
>>>>> agreement to the licence, that would be legally ineffective, because
>>>>> Apple cannot force you to agree to terms as a condition of using
>>>>> something that you already have the right to use.
>>>>
>>>> that is totally false. you might want to talk to an intellectual
>>>> property lawyer for how things really work.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, instead of just claiming I'm wrong, you could point to
>>> specifics.
>>
>> what you wrote makes no sense. preinstalled software is licensed and
>> any time the user upgrades it, a new version is copied to the device,
>> rending the entire claim moot. it's simply wrong.
>>
>> talk to a lawyer for specifics about software licensing (which i've
>> done) and stop getting legal advice from random web sites.

> As regards upgrades, there are at least two kinds - upgrades that the user
> choose, and upgrades that are forced on the user.

No upgrades of the OS are forced on the user with an iphone.

> In the former case, the user clearly has the option of not upgrading. In
> the latter, the new software is installed by the manufacturer,

Doesn’t happen on an iphone.

> and is an authorised copy.

On 09-Aug-21 10:39 pm, Mayayana wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>
> | >> But when you buy an iPhone, it comes with a copy of the software
> already
> | >> installed, and the copy was authorised by Apple. So you own an
> | >> authorised copy. There is no need to copy anything[*]. So no licence is
> | >> required, and any rights that Apple claims to have by virtue of the
> | >> licence do not exist. Even if you find that you have to click on
> | >> agreement to the licence, that would be legally ineffective, because
> | >> Apple cannot force you to agree to terms as a condition of using
> | >> something that you already have the right to use.
> | >
> | > that is totally false. you might want to talk to an intellectual
> | > property lawyer for how things really work.
> |
> | Alternatively, instead of just claiming I'm wrong, you could point to
> | specifics.
> |
>
> Nospam never addresses specifics. He tries to bluster his way
> through, getting his thrills from the argument itself. If you address
> a point he seems to be making he'll just switch the context of
> discussion. In the end, you have only yourself to blame for
> talking to him in the first place. :)
>
> I find your description of licensing very clear and sensible.
> Unfortunately, I think I also remember a "clickwrap" license
> being tested once in court and being accepted as legal. Even
> more bizarre are the unilateral licenses, such as on websites:

I think the clickwrap licence issue related to the question of whether
it represented an attempt to impose new conditions after the sale. Based
only on my memory, the courts found that everyone knows about clickwrap
licences, and would be aware, before the purchase, of the existence.

If you buy software on DVD, then in the absence of a click-wrap licence,
there would be an implied licence to copy the software onto your PC,
since some kind of licence is required, or doing that would be a breach
of copyright. The clickwrap mechanism just establishes the terms of the
licence.

>
> "By using this site you agree we can spy on you." That
> message is contained in the HTML file that they just gave
> to you without any demands or negotiations. And all you had
> to do was to send a GET request to their server. No licensing
> agreement was made.

Tesla's Powerwall warranty says that just by connecting the thing to the
internet (which is pretty much the only way of having any control over
it), one consents to Tesla applying updates.

Sylvia.

On 2021/08/08 4:13 pm, Alan Baker wrote:

> Why do you care about them doing something that will have absolutely no
> effect on you?

Obviously this ignorant Baker troll is unaware of this famous poem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

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

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

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

In article <sesdf5$dsr$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> >> (Can you rifle through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie
> >> porn and turn him in if found?)
>
> > yes.
>
> If you entered your neighbors house without permission you could be
> charged with trespassing or burglary.

true, but the child porn charge isn't going to magically disappear just
because you also got hit with trespass or burglary.

he didn't say break into the neighbor's house. it could be after being
invited.

on the other hand, if a cop searched without a warrant, then anything
found would be inadmissible, unless consent is given for the search.

that's why cops will ask, 'you don't mind if i search your car, do
you?' most people say yes. if you say no, they will intimidate you into
saying yes. 'well, we could call out a drug-sniffing dog, but that will
probably be an hour, maybe longer, you don't want to drag this out
longer than it needs to be, do you?'

> > law enforcement would need a warrant to search. ordinary citizens do
> > not.
>
> If you saw child porn after illegally entering and told the cops they should
> then secure the house, get the warrant based on your probable
> cause statement, and then get the porn evidence. That should help secure
> a charges for both of you.
>
> > people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair shop
> > sees child porn, it gets reported.
>
> Quite different from illegally entering someone's home...

not really. it's a private entity finding evidence of a crime.

law enforcement would need a warrant to seize and search the computer.

joe's computer repair shop does not.

On 08/08/2021 22:52, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Correcting misinformation, lies, and hyperbole isn't "defending to the
> death", but you know that. You're just hell-bent on ragging on Apple for
> doing scanning uploaded photos for child porn when the fact is all of
> the major players on the market have been doing just that (and in a less
> private way) for decades longer than Apple, because: "Apple: BAD!!1!"

This moron Jolly Roger doesn't seem to know anything about psychology.
It's not the child that is bad - it's what the child did that was bad.

It's basic advice parents are given by psychologists for raising good kids.
This Jolly Roger doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

This Jolly Roger should stop saying people are saying "Apple is bad."
Begin to comprehend that people are saying what Apple did is what's bad.

Apple still has time to save face and retract the plans for this back door.
Apple is a good company with good intentions who just did a very bad thing.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 00:24:43 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> You keep asking for another solution, but I say why is Apple even involved
> in this? This is a law enforcement issue and the onus is on them to
> identify criminals, not a phone company. Is Apple now an arm of law
> enforcement or are they deciding on their own to find criminals?

I'm with badgolferman and with the rest of the free world who is not paid by
Apple who knows that it's not Apple's job to scan your phone for whatever LE
wants just as it's not Apple's job to search your home for stolen street
signs or to search your car for drugs or to test the paternity of your kids.

Leave search warrants for invading every home & phone to law enforcement.

On Sun, 08 Aug 2021 20:55:28 -0400, nospam wrote:
> how do you propose apple comply with u.s. law?

Apple complied with the law to the best of their ability.

If Apple didn't comply, where is the cite from LE that they didn't?
It doesn't exist.

Your entire argument is bullshit.
Only you believe your bullshit.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 11:43:28 -0400, nospam wrote:
> they're correcting disinformation, nearly all of which is from you,
> *with* cites, which you falsely claim are never provided.

Just moments ago you said Apple is forced by LE to perform on the phone
scanning and you didn't cite anything (because it was bullshit from you).

>> Look at Johnson and Johnson's response to the Tylenol tampering. Apple
>> should form a strategy team to address the damage that's been done to
>> the company's reputation and restore the trust of the public
>
> that's yet another example of your disinformation and attempt to troll.

Just moments ago you claimed Apple is being forced by LE to search the
iPhone without a single citation which was another example of your
disinformation and attempt to troll.

Everything you've said is bullshit.

Apple decided on their own to search your iPhone & Apple was not forced to
search the iPhone by LE despite uncited bullshit from you that they were.

On 8 Aug 2021 19:45:35 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Why must every single iPhone user be subjected to this intrusion?
>
> They aren't. That's a lie.

How can these people deny what is known to everyone?
Don't they realize they are spewing bullshit in defense of Apple's action?

Is this defensive uncited "that's a lie" bullshit they spew all they have?

On 09.08.2021 03:58, nospam wrote:
> apple is *very* clear about how it works.

The only thing Apple does that is clear is they clearly lie outright.

Apple "clearly" says the iCloud is end to end encrypted.

Except that's a lie.

(Apple holds the key to everything!)

What's clear is Apple clearly lies that it's end to end encryption.

It's only end to end encrypted under Apple's specific definition.

Under ANYONE elses definition, iCloud data is not end to end encrypted when
Apple holds the key and when Apple has given millions of unencrypted files
to almost anyone who has asked.