Apple enabling client-side CSAM scanning on iPhone tomorrow

Post by zepto » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

m4rtink wrote: post #686

zepto wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t make the system audited. The obvious reason we don’t hear more about the weaknesses is that no high value targets are using these systems, so it’s not worth exploiting them.

Um, these distros are normally used to run like half the Internet, they are very valuable targets today and I don't think putting them on a phone changes the threat environment so much.

Post by relax88 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

lenkite wrote: post #616

relax88 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple spends a hell of a lot more time and money verifying that my iPhone is secure than say… the developers of any number of the mobile Linux ports. Plus the hardware is nice and actually works. I agree with what you say in principle but here I am using an iPhone to type this while it’s been nearly 2 years since I ordered my Librem 5. Making decent mobile devices that are more secure than an iPhone is not an easy th…

I wondered whether this was sarcasm at first. Yes, making iCloud backups encrypted is not an easy thing I guess.

Post by sfoley » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

keyme wrote: post #221

Dear humans, 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of today's present even then. 2) You willingly got yourself irrevocably vendor-locked by participating in their closed social networks, so that it's almost impossible to leave (2006). 3) You willingly switched over essentially all human communication to said social ne…

Post by suizi » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

williamscales wrote: post #607

setpatchaddress wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrealistic. My non-tech family and friends don’t care about this, and I can’t make them care. They don’t understand why it’s a problem; they agree with the motive and don’t understand that it’s not actually a solvable problem. It’s not totally dissimilar to the crypto backdoor problem. Normies think it’s great for only the feds to break encryption. Doesn’t work that way, but you can’t explain why to someone who does…

Perhaps as I stated it, yeah it seems unrealistic. However I do think there’s value in gentle, consistent evangelism of privacy in ways that don’t make people feel bad. Most folks actually don’t want their deeply private stuff to be accessible. I’ve found that there are good analogies and ways to think about it that folks can get on board with and start caring to some extent. I absolutely agree that political progres…

Post by Someone » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #592

lijogdfljk wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, Apple's incentive seems to be hardware from the outside more than Software, imo. They tend to sell the hardware by the software for a lot of people, but given that they're so concerned with keeping their software on their hardware i suspect they don't have much reason to push their software over your software. What would concern me is if we see a big revenue stream from their software. Then i'd question them no…

Are you kidding? After getting a taste of the revenue-potential of software in the App Store, it is inevitable that Apple wants more of it. In fact, I predict that Apple will at one point start selling software as a subscription, like SaaS. Other OSes don't fit in that model.