I really love the EFF, but I also believe the immediate backlash is (relatively) daft. There is a potential for abuse of this system, but consider the following too:
1. PhotoDNA is already scanning content from Google Photos and a whole host of other service providers.
2. Apple is obviously under pressure to follow suit, but they developed an on-device system, recruited mathematicians to analyze it, and published the results, as well as one in-house proof and one independent proof showing the cryptographic integrity of the system.
3. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to successfully convince the general public that a tool designed to stop the spread of CSAM is a "bad thing" unless they can show concrete examples of the abuse.
For one and two: given the two options, would you rather that Apple implement serverside scanning, in the clear, or go with the on-device route? If we assume a law was passed to require serverside scanning (which could very well happen), what would that do to privacy?
For three: It's an extremely common trope to say that people do things to "save the children." Well, that's still true. Arguing against a CSAM scanning tool, which is technically more privacy preserving than alternatives from other cloud providers, is an extremely uphill battle. The biggest claim here is that the detection tool could be abused against people. And that very well may be possible! But the whole existence of NCMEC is predicated on stopping the active and real danger of child sex exploitation. We know with certainty this is a problem. Compared to a certainty of child sex abuse, the hypothetical risk from such a system is practically laughable to most people.
So, I think again, the backlash is daft. It's been about two days of the announcement being public (leaks). The underlying mathematics behind the system has barely been published [0]. It looks like the EFF rushed to make a statement here, and in doing so, it doesn't look like they took the time to analyze the cryptography system, to consider the attacks against it, or to consider possible motivations and outcomes. Maybe they did, and they had advanced access to the material. But it doesn't look like it, and in the court of public opinion, optics are everything.
[0]: https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Alternative_Security_...
1. PhotoDNA is already scanning content from Google Photos and a whole host of other service providers.
2. Apple is obviously under pressure to follow suit, but they developed an on-device system, recruited mathematicians to analyze it, and published the results, as well as one in-house proof and one independent proof showing the cryptographic integrity of the system.
3. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to successfully convince the general public that a tool designed to stop the spread of CSAM is a "bad thing" unless they can show concrete examples of the abuse.
For one and two: given the two options, would you rather that Apple implement serverside scanning, in the clear, or go with the on-device route? If we assume a law was passed to require serverside scanning (which could very well happen), what would that do to privacy?
For three: It's an extremely common trope to say that people do things to "save the children." Well, that's still true. Arguing against a CSAM scanning tool, which is technically more privacy preserving than alternatives from other cloud providers, is an extremely uphill battle. The biggest claim here is that the detection tool could be abused against people. And that very well may be possible! But the whole existence of NCMEC is predicated on stopping the active and real danger of child sex exploitation. We know with certainty this is a problem. Compared to a certainty of child sex abuse, the hypothetical risk from such a system is practically laughable to most people.
So, I think again, the backlash is daft. It's been about two days of the announcement being public (leaks). The underlying mathematics behind the system has barely been published [0]. It looks like the EFF rushed to make a statement here, and in doing so, it doesn't look like they took the time to analyze the cryptography system, to consider the attacks against it, or to consider possible motivations and outcomes. Maybe they did, and they had advanced access to the material. But it doesn't look like it, and in the court of public opinion, optics are everything.
[0]: https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Alternative_Security_...