Live data from Hacker News

Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

lapcatsoftware.com

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#561
post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t. I highly suggest everyone else does their darnedest not too either. Don’t do it in your own software. Refuse and push back against it at $dayJob. I realize that my small contribution as a privacy and data-respecting SWE is extremely small, but if we all push back against the MBAs telling us to do these things, the world will be better off.

Why do you assume it's MBA driven? As a software developer, I like knowing when my software crashes so that I can fix it. I don't care or even want to know who you are, your IP address, or anything that could be linked back to you in any way, but I can't fix it if I don't know that it's crashing in the first place.

Once it is running on a computer you don't own, it is no longer your software.

To put it in the language of someone who mistakenly thinks you can own information: data about crashes on computers that aren't yours simply doesn't belong to you.

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#562
post #427

> I don't understand most of the technical details of Apple's blog post. I did understand the cited bits, and sorry to say but this could have been an optimistic post ("look at this cool new thing!") I dislike Apple's anti-hacker (in the HN sense of the word) practices as much as the next person and don't own any Apple device for that and other reasons, but saying "it doesn't matter how you solved the privacy problem…

the main criticism is about sending private and sensitive data to Apple without consent and warning

I imagine Apple might argue that no private information is sent thanks to the use of homomorphic encryption. But Apple’s explanation rings hollow without the user having the ability to verify that this system is working as described.

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#563
post #346
post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers of software want, and feel entitled to, the data on your computer, both about your usage within the app, as well as things you do outside of the app (such as where you go and what you buy). Software will continue to spy on people so long as it is not technically prohibited or banned.

I don’t. I highly suggest everyone else does their darnedest not too either. Don’t do it in your own software. Refuse and push back against it at $dayJob. I realize that my small contribution as a privacy and data-respecting SWE is extremely small, but if we all push back against the MBAs telling us to do these things, the world will be better off.

You sadly can't fix a systemic issue by telling individual workers what not to do. There's too much money on the line.

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#564

It is frankly nothing short of amazing that Apple ships things like homomorphic encryption, and differential privacy, and client-side vectorization, and encrypted vectors, at the scale that they inhabit... and they still get a bad report card back from consumers about privacy. Comparing Apple and Google, or Apple and Microsoft, it seems to me that Apple's track record on these issues is actually not as bad as public…

> It is frankly nothing short of amazing that Apple ships things like homomorphic encryption, and differential privacy, and client-side vectorization, and encrypted vectors, at the scale that they inhabit... and they still get a bad report card back from consumers about privacy.

Personally, I don't shy away from criticizing Google, but that's not the point. Apple makes big claims about their privacy practices that neither Google nor Microsoft make, it would be bizarre to hold Google or Microsoft to claims and standards that Apple set for themselves.

> Comparing Apple and Google, or Apple and Microsoft, it seems to me that Apple's track record on these issues is actually not as bad as public opinion might suggest. Meta doesn't even make the list for comparison, and neither does Amazon.

> It makes me wonder if picking privacy as a strategy is workable in the first place. People trust TLS; people use banking apps on their phone now without thinking. I remember in 2008 or so when people still didn't quite trust SSL.

> I'm not sure if Apple will be able to bridge the gap here, though, if _all_ of their competition simply chooses not to ship those features. Do customers know the difference? Do they... care? In theory they want their data to be private, yes. But if they are not willing to educate themselves to perform their counterparty obligation in fulfilling "informed consent," there may be no action Apple could take to avoid catching the same bad rap everyone else does.

I've said this elsewhere, but what I really dislike about Apple's strategy regarding privacy is that they treat privacy as a purely technological problem that could be solved if only we had better technology, but they ignore that a huge component of why users have been subjected to so many flagrant privacy violations is because they have zero visibility and zero real control over their computing experiences. Apple would very much like to retain their iron grip on what users are allowed to do on their platforms, as they make a ton of money off of their control of the platforms in various ways, so they have a huge incentive to make sure we're all arguing about whether or not Apple is better or worse than Google or Microsoft. Because sure, I do believe that if we held Google to the same privacy standards that Apple currently has, it would probably kill Google. However, if Apple and Google were both forced to give more transparency and control to the users somehow, they'd both be in a lot of trouble.

Despite all of this effort, I think that user trust in the privacy of cloud computing and pushing data out to the internet will only ever go down, because attacks against user privacy and security will only ever continue to get more and more sophisticated as long as there are resourceful people who have a reason to perform said attacks. And there certainly always will be those resourceful people, including in many cases our own governments, unfortunately.

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#565
post #427

> I don't understand most of the technical details of Apple's blog post. I did understand the cited bits, and sorry to say but this could have been an optimistic post ("look at this cool new thing!") I dislike Apple's anti-hacker (in the HN sense of the word) practices as much as the next person and don't own any Apple device for that and other reasons, but saying "it doesn't matter how you solved the privacy problem…

Homomorphic encryption is something I heard about through a research paper a few years ago. Back then I understood that an operation like SUM would be able to compute the sum of a list of numbers where each number was encrypted. The way the encryption worked made it possible to add all the values together without decrypting them, and the result ended up being encrypted too in such a way that the owner could decrypt i…

One specific use Apple is making of homomorphic encryption as of iOS 18 (I think) is for spam callers. You get a phone call, your phone sends Apple the encrypted phone number, they run it against their spam caller database, and you get the encrypted spam/not spam response back. They published a bunch of open source code around this functionality a while back.

https://www.swift.org/blog/announcing-swift-homomorphic-encr...

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#566
This discussion got quite long without anyone mentioning the novel technical implementation paper "Scalable Private Search with Wally". Kudos to Apple for researching this, but shame on them for enabling this by default.

As a somewhat homomorphic encryption scheme, each query releases some bits of information on what you searching for to avoid using the whole database. Subsequent queries from a given user will generally be correlated enough to build a tracer. Governments or other powerful enough actors can pierce the proxy veil, heck the tracer will be able to deanonymize you with enough queries recorded.

How many queries? For me it is too tedious to work out the math from the differential privacy definitions and I already know the landmarks around me: I don't want such a feature.

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play Apple's advocate, this system will probably never be perfect, and stand up to full scrutinity from everyone on the planet. And they also need the most people possible activated as it's an adverserial feature. The choice probably looks to them like: A - play the game, give everyone a heads up, respond to all feedback, and never ship the feature B - YOLO it, weather the storm, have people forget about it after…

To give you feedback in your role as Apple's advocate: "we had to sneak it out because people wouldn't consent if we told them" isn't the best of arguments

Agreed. This two/three years in particular, there has been more instances where what's best for Apple hasn't been what's best for their users.

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#569
post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homomorphic encryption is something I heard about through a research paper a few years ago. Back then I understood that an operation like SUM would be able to compute the sum of a list of numbers where each number was encrypted. The way the encryption worked made it possible to add all the values together without decrypting them, and the result ended up being encrypted too in such a way that the owner could decrypt i…

One specific use Apple is making of homomorphic encryption as of iOS 18 (I think) is for spam callers. You get a phone call, your phone sends Apple the encrypted phone number, they run it against their spam caller database, and you get the encrypted spam/not spam response back. They published a bunch of open source code around this functionality a while back. https://www.swift.org/blog/announcing-swift-homomorphic-en…

That's really cool! Thanks for sharing :)

Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

#570
post #292

What I want is very simple: I want software that doesn't send anything to the Internet without some explicit intent first . All of that work to try to make this feature plausibly private is cool engineering work, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with implementing a feature like this, but it should absolutely be opt-in. Trust in software will continue to erode until software stops treating end users and their data…

> Trust in software will continue to erode > there is an increasing discontent growing towards opt-out telemetry Really? That's news to me. What I observed is people giving up more and more privacy every year (or "delegating" their privacy to tech giants).

Whether or not people in general are aware of this issue and care about it, I think it's pretty disingenuous to characterize people as willfully giving up their privacy because they own smartphone. When stuff like this is happening on both iOS and Android, it's not feasible to avoid this without just opting out of having a smartphone entirely, and representing as a binary choice of "choose privacy or choose not to care about privacy" is counterproductive, condescending, and a huge oversimplification.
Post reply on HN