71–80 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this system, where Apple sees far less photos, worse? You can't audit anything Apple does on their servers.
It's disturbing because of how effective it could be. It's at OS level, anything you have on your phone can be scanned. Even if an app tries to circumvent it by keeping files encrypted at rest it can scan them in-memory. And since it's all done client-side you'd never know it was happening until it found a match and sent it to Apple.
I honestly don't get the uproar here. This is opt-in, so how is it any more outrageous than existing MDM software that people opt-in to for work reasons which are way more invasive?
I really don’t understand why apple is doing this. What point are they trying to score and from whom ? Do they think implementing a spyware in iPhone would boost sales? Or does it bring revenue from charging government agency to use this feature? I just don’t get it.
"the screeching voices of the minority" is how they refer to those who value privacy...
...which is ultimately what they are going to try to do: label those who oppose this feature as being supporters of child abuse. It's a classic "if you're not with us, you're against us" argument.
I really don’t understand why apple is doing this. What point are they trying to score and from whom ? Do they think implementing a spyware in iPhone would boost sales? Or does it bring revenue from charging government agency to use this feature? I just don’t get it.
That’s scary
I honestly don't get the uproar here. This is opt-in, so how is it any more outrageous than existing MDM software that people opt-in to for work reasons which are way more invasive?
So the very fact that it is opt-in means it doesn't even try to "protect the children"; it just uses the children argument to promote the idea of total control, which will be then used for a host of other purposes.
I really don’t understand why apple is doing this. What point are they trying to score and from whom ? Do they think implementing a spyware in iPhone would boost sales? Or does it bring revenue from charging government agency to use this feature? I just don’t get it.
Could be throwing a bone to politicians who say E2E encryption protects criminals. Not saying I agree, but I could see this being a compromise on Apple's part.
Apple's mistake is that they seemingly believe there is pushback because people misunderstand how it works. The reality is more nuanced: People understand exactly how it works, and how it works is that it is turn-key onboard spyware, that Apple pinky-swears isn't being used wrong today . For example if the scope/mission expands (e.g. foreign governments), suddenly you've created a drag-net for whatever "badness" is o…
I've often wondered why with the prevalence of Echo, Google Assistant, and engines that recognize what copywritten song you're using in a YouTube video... They haven't extended the code on our phones to listen for the sound signature of anyone watching a well-known child abuse video. Surely if they use the microphone they can get a lot more positives. Instead of just catching people who watched it on the phone direct…
Assuming that "CSAM" is a euphemism for "CP", then... Isn't it pretty rare for people to watch porn with the sound on? Speaking as a frequent consumer of legal and ethical porn, I almost never turn the sound on. It's easier to contain leaks of light than of sound. You can cast that net, I just doubt it'll catch many fish.