I don't understand. How does it affect encrypted messages? It seems like either you need:

1. allow MITM decryption by a privileged authority

2. require all devices doing E2EE have a non-user-modifiable piece of functionality to scan on-device

The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner? I have to say that I do sometimes think about it while taking a photo of my baby playing in the bathtub - photos like my parents have of me which have been kind of nice to see later. It would be a pity if I had to have a separate analog camera just for baby photos because then I'd need to learn the whole developing film stuff.

▲

earth-tattoo 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There are in betweens of an iphone and analog camera. You can use a digital camera with an SD card that you plug into a laptop that never connects to internet.

▲

petcat 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It would be a pity if I had to have a separate analog camera just for baby photos because then I'd need to learn the whole developing film stuff.

Polaroid coming back in business! I would not complain at all if we started reverting some of our lifestyle behaviors back to analog.

	▲	arjie 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Haha, we do have those Instax Mini cameras. They make for a nice dose of nostalgia. We have a big frame full of photos of our friends and family on the wall and it's nice to walk by.

▲

pqtyw 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apple's proposal was only for photos being uploaded to iCloud and not local ones.

IIRC weren't there some thoughts that they'd switch iCloud to E2E but add local scanning on upload (compare to what it currently when Apple, Google, etc. freely scan all your cloud photos anyway). That didn't seem like a terrible deal on paper.

▲

ExpertAdvisor01 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Platforms will stop offering E2EE . Didn't Instagram abandon E2EE ?

	▲	arjie 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That is a much more simple prediction. I do use Telegram with our family claw-like and it does not do E2EE by default. You need to do a secret chat or whatever. I think you're probably right. We'll just lose E2EE.

▲

grg0 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am not fully acquainted with the details, but I would not discard (3) make e2ee illegal, at least for platforms of certain size etc. That is what the proponents ultimately want anyway. If they settle for anything else, it's because of the resistance.

▲

nicce 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner?

This is exactly what has been proposed. E.g. WhatsApp has a piece of code that scans images and texts before sending. After that, they are "encrypted".

	▲	alethic 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is of course a massive privacy violation, since the code that scans for CSAM can be switched out to scan for anything else at any time. (It's even easier to do now than when Apple first proposed it, as language models since have gotten good at reading images.)

▲

vaylian 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are correct in that both option 1 and 2 are possible. For end-to-end encrypted messages only option 2 is possible. The content will be scanned directly on your own device and the data will be sent to the authorities without your knowledge, if the software detects something suspicious. This is called client-side-scanning.

▲

cortesoft 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]