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

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 19 December 2023 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7086CC15199C; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 02:58:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.705
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5MkIr37feMjE; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 02:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74994C15107C; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 02:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 3BJAwego003204 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Dec 2023 02:58:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1702983531; x=1703069931;; bh=S2l8G/sxZhL0GNgUI1ceVZogxA3ILD6fRKJPs2pWIzk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=mNXUp11Br/2UztzIcla2I2Ro+3+Hke+u+A8UGsLpGThiaCCZonVoHRueLovFEigpi f+8hRjqcaoMx2qPzWbrvx0u7nXtJlOEA2e3a5mqSFkDwffeTfl6oqJieC8enOscMo7 TK+fxbCOS+WpD6/UnNok3LwluVUJ9Wti7RRw6PDs=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 02:55:59 -0800
To: Vittorio Bertola <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: < m>
References: <> <> <CWXP265MB5153610FBB98A7B06AF81040C290A@CWXP265MB5153.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <CWXP265MB515381523714FF99524410CFC290A@CWXP265MB5153.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] IAB Statement on Encryption and Mandatory Client-side Scanning of Content
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:58:58 -0000

Hi Victorio,

I trimmed the Cc.

At 01:13 AM 19-12-2023, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Great! So, could the IAB please tell Apple to stop preventing me 
>from running on my MacBook Pro executables that didn't go through 
>their app store or vetting process? A few days ago I tried to run 
>"rar" via command line after getting it via Homebrew, and my laptop 
>simply refused to do so because rar's developer isn't a friend of 
>Apple, and in the end I had to go through a seven click process at 
>the third level of the computer's settings just to be able to run 
>rar. I never asked for this check, but apparently there is no way, 
>not even a cumbersome one, to disable it permanently.
>Somehow, however, this kind of client-side scanning and blocking of 
>content "imposed upon the operator of the device whether they want 
>it or not" does not seem to be a problem for the IAB, but blocking CSAM is.

If I understand the above correctly, you argued that the IAB is being 
selective about which content can be blocked.  The IAB statement 
could create such a perception.  The silence of the IAB, excluding 
the two persons who may be affiliated with it, does not make matters 
any better.

S. Moonesamy