[flagged]
> if you use iCloud Photos (only that applies)
It's enabled by default for most people, whether they use iCloud or not.
Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
741–750 of 1001 posts
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This mindset is how we got those awful cookie banners. The only thing I've found awful is the mindset of the people implementing the banners. That you feel frustration over that every company has a cookie banner, is exactly the goal. The companies could decide that it isn't worth frustrating the user over something trivial like website analytics, as they could get that without having to show a cookie banner at all.…
In my experience, most people that have semi or full decision-making control over this kind of thing have absolutely no idea if they even need cookie consent banners. They just fall for the marketing speak of every single SAAS product that sells cookie-consent/GDPR stuff and err on the side of caution. No one wants to be the guy that says: "hey, we're only logging X, Y and not Z. And GDPR says we need consent only if…
> have absolutely no idea if they even need cookie consent banners
> This is why half the web has cookie-consent banners
Agree, but we as developers can have an impact in this, especially in smaller companies. I've managed to "bark up the ladder" sufficiently to prevent people from mindlessly adding those popups before, and I'm sure others have too.
But those companies have all been companies where user experience is pretty high up on the priority ladder, so it's been easy cases to make.
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#743Earlier quoted context omitted.
This mindset is how we got those awful cookie banners. Even more dialogs that most users will blindly tap "Allow" to will not fix the problem. Society has collectively decided (spiritually) that it is ok signing over data access rights to third parties. Adding friction to this punishes 98% of people in service of the 2% who aren't going to use these services anyway. Sure, a more educated populous might tip the scales…
> This mindset is how we got those awful cookie banners. The only thing I've found awful is the mindset of the people implementing the banners. That you feel frustration over that every company has a cookie banner, is exactly the goal. The companies could decide that it isn't worth frustrating the user over something trivial like website analytics, as they could get that without having to show a cookie banner at all.…
It’s odd that you think the people implementing the banners want them so they can get more data. They want them because they provide a shield from litigation. I don’t know about you, but in the past year, most of my ads on Facebook are from law firms with headlines like “have you browsed (insert random minor e-commerce site) in the past two years? Your data may have been shared. You may be entitled to compensation.” If I’m a random mom and pop e-commerce site and I do not add a cookie banner, and I use any form of advertising at all, then I am opening myself up to a very expensive lawsuit - and attorneys are actively recruiting randos to serve as plaintiffs despite them never being harmed by “data collection.”
It’s that simple. That’s the situation with CCPA. Not sure the exact form that GDPR penalties take because I’m not European. But it’s not a complicated issue. you have to display some stupid consent thing if you’re going to have the code that you’re required to have in order to buy ads which take people to your website.
Note that plenty of these cookie banner products don’t actually work right, because they’re quite tricky to configure correctly, as they’re attempting to solve a problem within the webpage sandbox that should be solved in the browser settings (and could easily be solved there even today by setting it to discard cookies at close of browser). However, the legal assistants or interns at the law firm pick their victims based on who isn’t showing an obvious consent screen. When they see one, it’s likely that they will move onto the next victim because it’s much easier to prove violation of the law if they didn’t even bother to put up a cookie banner. A cookie banner that doesn’t work correctly is pretty easy to claim as a mistake.
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#744To me it seems like a reasonable feature that was, for the most part, implemented with great consideration for user privacy, though maybe I’m too trusting of the description. I mostly think this article is rage-bait and one should be wary of ‘falling for it’ when it shows up on hacker news in much the same way that one should be wary when rage-bait articles show up in tabloids or on Facebook. It seems likely to me th…
Literally all Apple needed to do was not have it enabled by default. Sending stuff over the network without asking is why trust in Apple is reduced further and further.
Apple already communicates home by default. They never even fixed the macOS app signature check that they said they would, and yet people still choose to use the OS.
(And to be clear I’m not even bothered by the signature check)
At a certain point you have to figure that they realize it doesn’t matter short of some government entity forcing them to stop. At the very least the protections they put in place (homomorphic encryption, etc) are more than I think most other companies would ever bother doing.
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
If every app and system is making network connections by default without the user's knowledge or intervention then it doesn't really prove that you are using the computer at all.
Completely missing the point, but you're right that I should have said “using or in possession” of the computer. The point is that they reveal your physical location to the network, so if they make requests while not directly in use then it's actually even worse. For context, stationary desktop machines comprise single-digit percentages of Mac sales: https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/03/06/macbook-pro-and-m... Eve…
[deleted]
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#746Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are some example keywords? I have never searched for landmarks, I only search for location. How many landmarks are there to justify sending your data off? Can't the database be stored on the device?
cat, pizza, dog, red car, Tokyo, dolphins, garden The usual context is "oh I saw some dolphins forever ago. let me see if I can find the photos..."
All of these worked in the past without sending any data off the device.
But now you suddenly need the cloud to have it recognize the Eiffel tower.
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#747Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, collective indifference to subpar user experiences has gotten us those lousy cookie banners. Web sites could legally use cookies for non-tracking purposes without cookie banners but considering people have not stopped visiting sites despite the fugly click-through cookie banners makes them a failure. All it takes is for 50% of the internet users to stop visiting web sites with them, and web site authors will st…
"All it takes is for 50% of the internet users to stop visiting web sites with them..." You've written that like it's a plausible and likely scenario.
I think it's very unlikely. "All it takes" was tongue in cheek.
(If it was likely, it would have already happened)
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#748Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notice is always good and Apple should implement notice. However, "my data is being sent off my device" is incorrect, as GP explained. Metadata, derived from your data, with noise added to make it irreversible, is being sent off your device. It's the equivalent of sending an MD5 of your password somewhere; you may still object, but it is not factually correct to say your password was transmitted.
> However, "my data is being sent off my device" is incorrect, as GP explained. Metadata, derived from your data, with noise added to make it irreversible, is being sent off your device. Sounds like my data is being sent off my device. > It's the equivalent of sending an MD5 of your password somewhere Sounds even worse lol
It does not sound like that at all.
There is plenty of data on your device that isn’t “your data” simply due to existing on your device.
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#749What 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…
Opt in doesn't work, it never did. The vast majority (>95%) of users does not understand what those pop-ups say, seems fundamentally incapable of reading them, and either always accepts, always rejects, or always clicks the more visually-appealing button. Try observing a family member who is not in tech and not in the professional managerial class, and ask them what pop-up they just dismissed and why. It's one of the…
Informed consent is sexy. In the Apple ecosystem, we’re literally paying customers. This is ridiculous. This line you parroted is ridiculous. This needs to stop.
Re: Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The average smartphone is probably doing a hundred things you didn’t knowingly consent to every second. You've succinctly identified a (maybe the ) huge problem in the computing world today. Computers should not do anything without the user's command/consent. This seems like a hopeless and unachievable ideal only because of how far we've already strayed from the light. Even Linux, supposedly the last bastion of use…
> I didn't consent to any of this! Yes you did. You purchased a computer, put this software on it and executed it. If you didn't want it to do whatever it's doing you should have determined what it would do beforehand and chose not to do it.
> whatever it's doing
Even assuming that running the software implies my consent (which I would dispute), how do I make the decision about whether I should execute the software if I don't know what it is doing?
This all-or-nothing approach is also problematic. I should not have to allow the developer free rein to do whatever he wants, as a condition of using the software. This is why operating systems are slowly building granular permissions and consent checks.