| General > General Technical Chat |
| Apple privacy letter (Law enforcement through your phone) |
| << < (15/24) > >> |
| magic:
--- Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2022, 03:52:32 am ---They use algorithms which will not experience a hash collision, that way, every single file in the world will have it's own, unique hash. --- End quote --- You fell for propaganda. It is guaranteed that there exist multiple pairs of files of length N+1, where N is the length of the hash, which map to the same hash value. I don't even need to know anything about the hash to prove it, it's called "pigeonhole principle". |
| bdunham7:
--- Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2022, 03:52:32 am ---Allow me to offer my view from a law enforcement perspective... ...Morally speaking, your human right to protect your dick pics from prying eyes doesn't trump the greater good of the community when these sorts of offences are involved. --- End quote --- Legally and according the constitution of the US, I'd disagree and I'd point out that with a system like this, you and whoever are asking us all to take it on faith that the system works benevolently and in the limited manner that you say it does. I'm not willing to extend that courtesy because I've seen grotesque abuses of such laws and presume that any such power is likely to be abused if it is wielded behind closed doors. The real sticking point here for some is that while we can understand how a cloud service might be compelled to do this with data uploaded to their system, and we might agree to it in the terms of service, in this case the intrusive search mechanism is being done on the users own hardware without their knowledge or consent. In any other context this would probably not be acceptable to most, but if you throw in the pedophile bogeyman everyone feels powerless to protest. Of course I don't want to defend pedophiles--nobody does--but that is what the overreachers are counting on--people not asking questions like "why is it a priority to hunt down people who may possess copies of old, known and widely circulated photos of children when in 99%+ of the cases they had absolutely nothing to do with the original crime, which may have happened years ago". |
| Halcyon:
--- Quote from: magic on August 23, 2022, 04:18:38 am --- --- Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2022, 03:52:32 am ---They use algorithms which will not experience a hash collision, that way, every single file in the world will have it's own, unique hash. --- End quote --- You fell for propaganda. It is guaranteed that there exist multiple pairs of files of length N+1, where N is the length of the hash, which map to the same hash value. I don't even need to know anything about the hash to prove it, it's called "pigeonhole principle". --- End quote --- Propaganda? It's called mathematics. Look at something like SHA-256... the probability of a hash collision is so extraordinarily small. --- Quote from: bdunham7 on August 23, 2022, 04:24:52 am ---Of course I don't want to defend pedophiles--nobody does--but that is what the overreachers are counting on--people not asking questions like "why is it a priority to hunt down people who may possess copies of old, known and widely circulated photos of children when in 99%+ of the cases they had absolutely nothing to do with the original crime, which may have happened years ago". --- End quote --- I'm not suggesting that anyone would be defending them, however child abuse is child abuse. Regardless of whether or not the images are "old" or otherwise. I personally don't see that as a lesser offence. |
| bdunham7:
--- Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2022, 04:37:49 am ---however child abuse is child abuse. Regardless of whether or not the images are "old" or otherwise. I personally don't see that as a lesser offence. --- End quote --- A photo of child abuse is not child abuse, it is evidence of child abuse and in some cases and jurisdictions, a separate offense. The original offense happened when the picture was taken. For any other crime, the photo would simply be evidence of a crime and possession of the photo in and of itself would not be a separate crime. However, there has been a (so far) singular exception carved out in most places now for photographic (and sometimes non-photographic) representations of sexual activity or even merely nudity involving minors. I think not seeing the latter as a different type of offense than the first is being willfully obtuse. And I've seen these laws applied in a grotesquely obtuse fashion on occasion, enough so that I am not willing to cede any privacy rights or anything else to support enforcement of them. |
| magic:
--- Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2022, 04:37:49 am ---Propaganda? It's called mathematics. Look at something like SHA-256... the probability of a hash collision is so extraordinarily small. --- End quote --- Until it doesn't. They used to say the same about MD5. At any rate, you made it sound like this property is somehow guaranteed, which is utter :bullshit: |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |