Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Under pressure from U.S. law enforcement, Apple has put a backdoor into their encryption system.

I'm not on board with what Apple's doing here, but is there any evidence to suggest this statement? From what I know, this is at best misleading and at worst downright false. For example, the scanning is done on user devices so that image data remains encrypted from the time it leaves a users' phone to the time it is retrieved by a user (from any client).



Like, what sort of evidence do you want exactly?

Apple can search for arbitrary information on user’s property. If you can search ciphertext, it’s not end to end encrypted anymore. End to end means no knowledge of plaintext should be discernible (sometimes even metadata).

Further, the dataset is set by them, is opaque and can be anything.

That’s obviously a back door in encryption (for government).


> Apple can search for arbitrary information on user’s property.

This is simply false, if you are referring to the CSAM mechanism.


Which part is false?

They state they begin with image data (with a data set they control). In the future, they “can” evolve the scope to anything.

Read the EFF articles. They are well written.


> In the future, they “can” evolve the scope to anything.

So, they can’t now then.


The EFF’s articles were full of lies and false assumptions.


What do you think is stopping Apple from including a hash of Tank Man along with all of the real CSAM hashes?


I guess it is a rhetorical question, but this is what will happen next if Apple doesn't halt this scanning initiative.

Too big to listen seems to be what Apple thinks of this matter.


The fact you can only use ‘tank man’ as the example proves that they can’t search for arbitrary information.

It’s a meaningless example in any case given that Chinese authorities have no problem forcing people to install spyware directly on their devices.


It’s both false and unsubstantiated. As described, it is not a back door, and there is no evidence that it was done under pressure.

Either of them could turn out to be true, given some evidence.


Exactly right, from what you know, which is limited to the point of useless on a proprietary, closed source system. It's almost guaranteed to be backdoored being as such.


> It's almost guaranteed to be backdoored being as such.

I.e. it’s a guess.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: