You just told me you want to enable content scanning everywhere with no technical restrictions. And now you’re trying to divert the conversation sideways onto another subject.
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green @migueldeicaza and
No, I’m saying you already have such content scanning, in a more powerful-for-oppression form already. It isn’t diverting the conversation, it is purely on point. That is the problem with the slippery slope argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @ncweaver @matthew_d_green and
It’s not just a question of matching, but the action taken in response. AV notifies the user and quarantines the file. Apple’s scheme silently reports the user to the authorities. The later is far more dangerous functionality to build.
2 replies 3 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @sjmurdoch @ncweaver and
I find it weird that Nick can look at a new system that is explicitly designed to report content to law enforcement — then compare it to other systems that don’t. And then deny that there is a “slope” here.
1 reply 0 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @sjmurdoch and
I find it weird that Matt can take a system which has far more aggressive capabilities and discount that slope as being far easier for his nightmares to go down.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ncweaver @sjmurdoch and
I assume that sometime before you write your next Lawfare column you’re going to admit that “system designed to report matches to law enforcement” is relevant to the discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @sjmurdoch and
Report matches to Apple which then forwards, yes. And I presume you are not going to admit that AV with silent upload is not also easy to pressure into “add forward”, and has the capability of scanning much more.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ncweaver @sjmurdoch and
These are a lot of weird caveats to add on to your very clear “I would scan everything” opinion above. Just stand by that and justify it to your audience. Don’t weasel around it.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @ncweaver and
Hmm, but it is a fair point that AV is ignored, maybe people don't realize how it works? It's way (way) worse than you think. You could totally make a JPEG that triggers what are called "lowfi" rules (name varies based on vendor) and a human would see it?
4 replies 0 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @taviso @matthew_d_green and
The point about current AV capabilities is a very good one. But the relationship between AV and the device owner is not adversarial. No one does jail time for getting malware on their device, and no company gets in trouble for failing to report detected viruses to the police.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
The AV situation is also a reminder that any such system introduces complexity to the last place you want to be adding complexity (image and file parsing), and necessarily cuts across security boundaries in order to make it impossible to hide stuff.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.