Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicce | Hacker News Reader

You are comparing ”apples” to oranges. App store apps are built by third parties whereas CSAM is Apple’s own code and design on OS level, applying on global level. App store apps have been under removal threat in every country for many years if they can be considered as illegal.

View on HN

So, same for Apple then, which would be under a threat from a government if they do not submit to whatever CSAM requirements, regardless of “pinky swear” promises?

People should start realisizing that they don’t have much control over for their iPhones, never hard. User interfaces are just an illusion. Reversing their black box code is too much work in real time.

We have always had to trust Apple and their word on what they do. There isn’t evidence that they have broken the trust yet, so what gives reason for even more speculation than before?

I’m saying that Apple is going to do what is required by law, there is no speculation.

This is true for booting an app from App Store, because it was required by a government, or looking through your data on your iPhone, due to a requirement from a government.

This article is evidence that Apple has and is continuously willing to bend to demands in dictatorships... That's why people are talking about it here.

Heck, even in democracies it's willing to bend. It's been widely reported that the reason iCloud backups aren't encrypted is to make it easier for the FBI to surveil them, despite there being no American laws forbidding Apple from encrypting the backups.

> This article is evidence that Apple has and is continuously willing to bend to demands in dictatorships... That's why people are talking about it here.

But this has happened for years already with similar ways. What has changed to make this big news? They have blocked many apps in the U.S as well, but it seems to be fine when for the majority it is OK. For example idea of withdrawal of the TikTok was fine for the most, while it was only for political reasons. People pick sides when it is the most suitable for them.

> It's been widely reported that the reason iCloud backups aren't encrypted is to make it easier for the FBI to surveil them, despite there being no American laws forbidding Apple from encrypting the backups.

And yet, Apple made a way to make encrypting possible while avoiding liabilities, and people made their best to not allow that happen. Such an irony. (Looking at CSAM feature. People seems to still ignore the fact, that it changes from server-side encryption into partial E2EE + server side encryption, tooking a way powerful arguments from FBI to not enable encryption on backups)

Apple has to comply with local laws, regardless of who authored the code.

Yes, but they are not forced to add new features, only to remove, which is kinda big difference.

They can be forced to do either.

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/03/16/apple-to-offer-governme...

Is this a removal of a feature?

> Apple struck a deal with the government that will show users a prompt when first configuring a device in Russia to pre-install apps from a list of government-approved software. Users will have the ability to decline the installation of certain apps.

Apps you can decline? And uninstall? We are talking about quite different things here. Not to mention every Android with pre-installed bloatware.

I mean, there's some big questions left out there. It says 'certain' apps. Is it all? Or just some?

If you do opt-out, does anybody get notified? Is it reasonable users are concerned somebody might get notified?

There's a lot going on there. And just to point out, this has moved on from saying Apple only removing features, to debating how bad the features they've added are.

It is very uncertain, who has added the word "certain", as quoted statement is just talking about offering:

> users will be offered a choice of applications from Russian developers, which they will be able to choose for further installation on their iPhone or iPad

That's not entirely true. Apple is big enough that they can ignore, bend, or even change local laws when it suits them, especially as it pertains to their operations outside the U.S.

It makes one wonder who or what made this demand worth fulfilling for Apple, but it could just as easily be someone incompetent at Apple blindly fulfilling a takedown request from the Russian government because it's in their job description to follow such demands and they didn't realize that a simple app takedown request had significant geopolitical implications. Who knows. Either way, Apple has definitely strayed far from the vision of their 1984-themed commercial back in the day where they shattered big brother with a hammer...

The CSAM databases are not Apple's own either.

Apple uses databases from 2 or more child safety organisations.

Specifically to prevent governments from being able to include entries.

What stops governments from requiring that "this one list" is required to be used, regardless of other organisations? Certainly not "Apple TOS".

> Specifically to prevent governments from being able to include entries.

Yes, governments and their intelligence agencies famously don't work together and share information[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com