Re: [arch-d] IAB Statement on Encryption and Mandatory Client-side Scanning of Content

[Arnaud Taddei <[e-mail]>]

I can only agree with your last clause Eliot which allows me to not make a long email why I am in the unsatisfied camp.

Have all a very good festive season and jump in the new year.

From: Architecture-discuss <[e-mail]> on behalf of Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 19 December 2023 at 10:20
To: Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
Cc: S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] IAB Statement on Encryption and Mandatory Client-side Scanning of Content

Hi!
On 18.12.2023 23:14, Eric Rescorla wrote:

ISTM that this is an example of a setting in which we have a term of art which is used in a way somewhat different from its literal meaning.

Specifically, it is very common right now to have clients of various kinds scan for material that the recipient doesn't want to receive, such as in the case of spam filtering, virus scanning, or Apple's sensitive content warning [0]. In many if not most of those cases, the operator of the device opted into or at least actively wants that kind of scanning. I think we can agree that this type of scanning works to some extent and isn't incompatible with open source or open protocols. This is, of course, scanning that happens on the client, and I believe it's what Brian is referring to.

What the IAB statement is referring to is something different, which is to say scanning which is imposed upon the operator of the device whether they want it or not, and is designed to stop the operator from sending and receiving certain classes of content. As you note, it's common practice to refer to this and not the type of scanning in the previous paragraph as "client-side scanning" (in contract to "server-side scanning"), but it's really the mandatory part of it that makes it distinct from other cases in which scanning happens on the client.



IAB statements are necessarily brief.  When they become lengthy, they have another vehicle: RFC.  With that in mind, there are clearly challenges in delineating in code the two cases you describe, as the interfaces that are used for one case could possibly be used for another; and that does strike me as intersecting the Internet Architecture.  I'm also confident that you have already blogged on this in detail ;-)

Also, this discussion seems to indicate that at least some people are unsatisfied with the statement.  I think we should view that as an opportunity.  What needs to be further teased out and what should the venue for that teasing be?  Here?  A separate mailing list?  PEARG?  HRPC?  And how could the conversation best be facilitated?

Eliot

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.