Starmer's vision quest

[Dorset Boy]

On your second point, when I set up my work phone a few months ago I had to do age verification in order to enable certain features so it’s already happening.

Seems (from a previous conversation on here) many on here use phones that are about 10 years old so have no idea of what is or isn't built in to the latest devices.....

 

[Psamathe]

On your second point, when I set up my work phone a few months ago I had to do age verification in order to enable certain features so it’s already happening.

I was not disputing if it is all ready happening, I was querying the effectiveness of it, and, how a device (phone/tablet/etc) can be "locked" to the verified individual.

Government seems to be conflating different issues.

Device manufacturers might have verified your age but it's Social Media not Apple/Google delivering this porn to youngsters and they are doing as little as possible as slowly as possible and Apple/Google can't start passing your details out to 3rd parties.

Stopping Social Media from presenting porn/violence to youngsters is a completely different issue from stopping youngsters being coerced into sending revealing pictures of themselves to others.

Re: Camera/image blocks. Even if Government specify it, even if device manufacturers implement it it will soon be bypassed by parents when eg. youngster can't take a picture of their younger brother on the beach because he's a bit overweight and if "he" was a "she" would be expected to wear a bikini top or maybe not at that age? Mum or Dad would soon be "unblocking".

 

[Pross]

Government seems to be conflating different issues.

Device manufacturers might have verified your age but it's Social Media not Apple/Google delivering this porn to youngsters and they are doing as little as possible as slowly as possible and Apple/Google can't start passing your details out to 3rd parties.

Stopping Social Media from presenting porn/violence to youngsters is a completely different issue from stopping youngsters being coerced into sending revealing pictures of themselves to others.

Re: Camera/image blocks. Even if Government specify it, even if device manufacturers implement it it will soon be bypassed by parents when eg. youngster can't take a picture of their younger brother on the beach because he's a bit overweight and if "he" was a "she" would be expected to wear a bikini top or maybe not at that age? Mum or Dad would soon be "unblocking".

If parents unblock it then they can't really complain but then parental responsibility seems to be more and more the responsibility of anyone other than parents.

 

[Psamathe]

Another aspect Government need to consider is at what point the manufacturers just decide that UK isn't a big enough market for all the trouble the UK Government are causing.

Given how much Apple push their privacy & security, how would their world markets react if Apple include screen/camera monitoring in the OS. Even ignoring the technical aspects, to have the OS scanning all your photos and images for content would erode their "privacy & security" stance.

Are Apple, Samsung, etc. all going to generate special versions of every OS just for the UK market.

Like when the UK Gov. decided it doesn't like encryption (eg hackers and scammers should get easier access to our confidential info), Apple just took them to court and despite UK Gov.'s efforts I still have full encryption that Apple can't access and if Apple are eventually forced to remove the encryption plenty of 3rd party methods to encrypt the data so UK Gov. still won't be able to get anything from anything. So only impact is to make like a bit more of a fiddle for UK users (Government gaining nothing). These Ministers just don't have a clue and hence make daft decisions.

 

[Pblakeney]

Government seems to be conflating different issues.

Device manufacturers might have verified your age but it's Social Media not Apple/Google delivering this porn to youngsters and they are doing as little as possible as slowly as possible and Apple/Google can't start passing your details out to 3rd parties.

Stopping Social Media from presenting porn/violence to youngsters is a completely different issue from stopping youngsters being coerced into sending revealing pictures of themselves to others.

Re: Camera/image blocks. Even if Government specify it, even if device manufacturers implement it it will soon be bypassed by parents when eg. youngster can't take a picture of their younger brother on the beach because he's a bit overweight and if "he" was a "she" would be expected to wear a bikini top or maybe not at that age? Mum or Dad would soon be "unblocking".

If you listen to Jess Philips on the subject (it was her originally pushing for it) then she says the evidence is that 90% of the pics come from the children themselves. Phones etc can be made to go black screen the moment an inappropriate photo is taken. The tech already exists.
Regarding disabling then I assume this can be made difficult and if parents find a workaround then they have no recourse.
My main point is that if it can be done effectively then why not do it? Seems like some are looking for excuses not to.

 

[Psamathe]

If you listen to Jess Philips on the subject (it was her originally pushing for it) then she says the evidence is that 90% of the pics come from the children themselves. Phones etc can be made to go black screen the moment an inappropriate photo is taken. The tech already exists.
Regarding disabling then I assume this can be made difficult and if parents find a workaround then they have no recourse.
My main point is that if it can be done effectively then why not do it? Seems like some are looking for excuses not to.

As above, what happens when a sibling tries to take a photo of their overweight brother on the beach where is the brother being photogtraphed was a sister they'd be expected to be wearing a bikini top? Can these system that "allegedly work" distinguish? Would they be required to distinguish (given Gov. has not yet specified anything beyond a soundbite)? Does it work with different skin colours, different ethnicities (will, it be required to as nothing yet specified)?

And verifying the reliability, security and vulnerability of 3rd party software to be integrated into every OS in the world is non-trivial (ownership, APIs, licensing, maintaining, etc.)

Ms Kendal on the radio this morning was confusing "already exists" with the system where known child abuse image hashing and online lookup with screen/camera monitoring/blocking. Government are glibly one moment talking about "tech already exists" one moment and next saying these companies are clever and can work out how to do it (ie it still needs developing). And previous attempts in web browsers have been a disaster, eg blocking some informative non-sexual Wikipedia web pages because an image has too much flesh colour in it.

One 3rd party was trying to show-off their system but no widespread trials, no demonstrations other than an example screen showing a blocked camera (and I can do that in photoshop in 5 mins).

 

[Psamathe]

My main point is that if it can be done effectively then why not do it? Seems like some are looking for excuses not to.

It's far more than doing it effectively. Perpetually scanning and analysing the screen takes processor power and thus shortens battery life. And it has to be continually running as it is being required as an Operating System function NOT an app based function. So shorter battery life on your devices.

Perpetually scanning and analysing the screen means it will also be scanning and analysing your banking app screen and input, etc. This means a potential vulnerability for hackers breaking into the system and in effect getting anything and everything displayed on your phone. And even if eg Apple thoroughly examine the 3rd party "working systems" to verify it, create APIs, add it into their Operating Systems and spend the effort producing a UK only version of every Operating System release they will miss more than one thing.

And it would have to be in UK only OS versions as the rest of the world would not accept the OS scanning and analysing every display screen, wouldn't accept the battery life impact, etc.

Edit: I focus on Apple as I use Apple devices but the same also applies to Samsung, Google, Sony, OnePlus, Motorola, etc.

 

[Pblakeney]

As above, what happens when a sibling tries to take a photo of their overweight brother on the beach where is the brother being photogtraphed was a sister they'd be expected to be wearing a bikini top? Can these system that "allegedly work" distinguish? Would they be required to distinguish (given Gov. has not yet specified anything beyond a soundbite)? Does it work with different skin colours, different ethnicities (will, it be required to as nothing yet specified)?

And verifying the reliability, security and vulnerability of 3rd party software to be integrated into every OS in the world is non-trivial (ownership, APIs, licensing, maintaining, etc.)

Ms Kendal on the radio this morning was confusing "already exists" with the system where known child abuse image hashing and online lookup with screen/camera monitoring/blocking. Government are glibly one moment talking about "tech already exists" one moment and next saying these companies are clever and can work out how to do it (ie it still needs developing). And previous attempts in web browsers have been a disaster, eg blocking some informative non-sexual Wikipedia web pages because an image has too much flesh colour in it.

One 3rd party was trying to show-off their system but no widespread trials, no demonstrations other than an example screen showing a blocked camera (and I can do that in photoshop in 5 mins).

I'm not going to answer as I don't know, and would simply be guessing. My other guess is that you are guessing too.
Jess Phillips has spent a lot of time researching this with the relevant companies so I think that she knows more than we do.
Not only does the tech exist but it is already in Apple OS and could be added to Android. This trumps the need for 3rd party app mods.

 

[Psamathe]

Not only does the tech exist but it is already in Apple OS and could be added to Android. This trumps the need for 3rd party app mods.

Where do you get that the tech already exists in Apple products from? 'cos only such measures Apple started was a system on known child abuse image hashing and checks but they abandoned it due to security and privacy issues so it never made it into phones.

Apple's iMessage blurring feature is rather different and not subject to anything like the same challenges..

 

[Pblakeney]

Where do you get that the tech already exists in Apple products from? 'cos only such measures Apple started was a system on known child abuse image hashing and checks but they abandoned it due to security and privacy issues so it never made it into phones.

Apple's iMessage blurring feature is rather different and not subject to anything like the same challenges..

From Jess Philips. DYOR, my point has been made and I'm not repeating myself or guessing.

 

[Psamathe]

From Jess Philips. DYOR, my point has been made and I'm not repeating myself or guessing.

She is getting confused about iMessage image blurring and functionality Starmer has announced.

Analysing and blurring bits of a received image in one app is trivial and limited as it is only applied to an image received in the app and the image displayed by that app. Continually scanning every screen update is a lot of processing (and thus battery life) and that represents a security vulnerability.

I suspect that continual screen scanning would kill the iPhone in the UK as all those private messages sent through WhatsApp, Signal, etc. would be being analysed by the Operating System through software rushed through without time for proper testing and all software has vulnerabilities.

 

[Pross]

As above, what happens when a sibling tries to take a photo of their overweight brother on the beach where is the brother being photogtraphed was a sister they'd be expected to be wearing a bikini top? Can these system that "allegedly work" distinguish? Would they be required to distinguish (given Gov. has not yet specified anything beyond a soundbite)? Does it work with different skin colours, different ethnicities (will, it be required to as nothing yet specified)?

And verifying the reliability, security and vulnerability of 3rd party software to be integrated into every OS in the world is non-trivial (ownership, APIs, licensing, maintaining, etc.)

Ms Kendal on the radio this morning was confusing "already exists" with the system where known child abuse image hashing and online lookup with screen/camera monitoring/blocking. Government are glibly one moment talking about "tech already exists" one moment and next saying these companies are clever and can work out how to do it (ie it still needs developing). And previous attempts in web browsers have been a disaster, eg blocking some informative non-sexual Wikipedia web pages because an image has too much flesh colour in it.

One 3rd party was trying to show-off their system but no widespread trials, no demonstrations other than an example screen showing a blocked camera (and I can do that in photoshop in 5 mins).

Does it really matter? We managed pretty well before people had the ability to take instantaneous photos whenever they wanted.

 

[Psamathe]

Does it really matter? We managed pretty well before people had the ability to take instantaneous photos whenever they wanted.

It's something many value (family recreational photos) and have now. You would be taking something innocent and harmless away from people.

nb that's just an example, there would be plenty more. eg (although I'm over 18) several years ago suffering something and GP said upload a photo of it to us (and provided a link). Lots of skin ...

 

[Pblakeney]

She is getting confused about iMessage image blurring and functionality Starmer has announced.

Analysing and blurring bits of a received image in one app is trivial and limited as it is only applied to an image received in the app and the image displayed by that app. Continually scanning every screen update is a lot of processing (and thus battery life) and that represents a security vulnerability.

I suspect that continual screen scanning would kill the iPhone in the UK as all those private messages sent through WhatsApp, Signal, etc. would be being analysed by the Operating System through software rushed through without time for proper testing and all software has vulnerabilities.

No, she's not as she has seen the process in action and it was done in the OS, not an app.
I'm done.

 

[Psamathe]

No, she's not as she has seen the process in action and it was done in the OS, not an app.
I'm done.

You keep making these assertions without any sources (and MPs are far from the most tech reliable sources). But any sources?

'cos everything I've heard from Ms Phillips does not say it exists.

There is a specialist phone from SafeToNet that includes the blocking systems but that is miles away from integrating it into Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. UK special version OSs for product where processor power and battery life are considered important features. Such considerations are less important in a locked down phone targeted as specific market sectors with limited distribution.

Also, integrating directly into camera hardware means every device needs additional hardware API access and there are other 3rd party apps that read camera hardware directly (eg Lr) so bypassed immediately. Can be loaded as an app but then not part of the OS and can easily be removed and not covering tablets (bigger screen -> even more processing -> even more battery). sorry, wrong because security on devices stop it being an app. I'm sure Apple will readily leap at the opportunity to switch on those protections for the world.