Live data from Hacker News

Apple Photos phones home on iOS 18 and macOS 15

lapcatsoftware.com

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761
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…

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…

The issue really isn't opt-in itself but how the option is presented.

I agree that a lot of people don't read, or attempt to understand the UI being presented to them in any meaningful manner. It really is frustrating seeing that happen.

But, think about the "colorful" option you briefly mentioned. Dark patterns have promoted this kind of behaviour from popups. The whole interaction pattern has been forever tainted. You need to present it in another way.

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

#762
I kept telling people here and on Reddit that Apple is using the whole idea of "Privacy First" on Apple devices as a marketing gimmick. The company has began introducing bloatware into their product and rivaling Windows bloatware.

Yet, people perception on Apple bloatware here seem to be, "that's fine".

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

#763
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…

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…

As much as I hate cookie consent dialogs everywhere, the fact is that it is clearly working. Some companies are going as far as to force users to pay money in order to be able to opt out of data collection. If it wasn't so cumbersome to opt-out, I reckon the numbers for opt-out would be even higher. And if companies weren't so concerned about the small portion of users that opt-out, they wouldn't have invested in finding so many different dark patterns to make it hard.

It is definitely true that most users don't know what they're opting out of, they just understand that they have basically nothing to gain anyway, so why opt-in?

But actually, that's totally fine and working as intended. To be fair to the end user, Apple has done something extremely complicated here, and it's going to be extremely hard for anyone except for an expert to understand it. A privacy-conscious user could make the best call by just opting out of any of these features. An everyday user might simply choose to not opt-in because they don't really care about the feature in the first place: I suspect that's the real reason why many people opt-out in the first place, you don't need to understand privacy risks to know you don't give a shit about the feature anyway.

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

#764
post #643

Earlier 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.…

Seconded: and we need to have worthy competitors spring up without those bad practices and lousy cookie banners, and people to flock to them. Once that happens, the "originals" will feel the pressure.

Not using those “bad practices” of third party analytics can be an existential threat to small businesses, unfortunately.

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

#765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That whole incident was so misinformed. CSAM scanning takes place on the cloud with all the major players. It only has hashes for the worst of the worst stuff out there. What Apple (and others do) is allow the file to be scanned unencrypted on the server. What the feature Apple wanted to add was scan the files on the device and flag anything that gets a match. That file in question would be able to be decrypted on th…

I can't believe how uninformed, angry, and still willing to argue about it people were over this. The whole point was a very reasonable compromise between a legal requirement to scan photos and keeping photos end-to-end encrypted for the user. You can say the scanning requirement is wrong, there's plenty of arguments for that. But Apple went so above and beyond to try to keep photo content private and provide E2E enc…

There isn’t a law that requires them to proactively scan photos. That is why they could turn the feature back off.

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

#766
post #629
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…

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…

Actually, if my mindset were leading, we wouldn't have cookie consent banners because we would've just banned non-essential tracking altogether.

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

#767
post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I actually think that's exactly what their wording is trying to say. And herein lies the problem, because they are literally saying what they say - private AND efficient AND scalable. You are the one adding hypothetical caveats. They are talking about offloading functionality that cannot occur on device. The scalability and efficiency is not being used as a reason to take privacy away, it is simply an additional re…

To "uphold one's commitment to privacy" the only thing to do is just that: uphold one's commitment to privacy. One doesn't need to make sure the lookups are "efficient" or "scalable" (or "clean" or "polite" or what have you). That is absolutely not needed for privacy. Why would they need to add these qualifiers if not to explain/justify that privacy isn't the only concern, there are technical matters to consider as w…

Not needed for privacy, but not an obstruction to it either.

They have thoroughly documented the architecture, so if you have a concern about that, then state it.

At the moment you are saying that because it’s efficient and scalable it must be at the cost of privacy - but have stated no reason for that to be true.

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

#768

Is this just a smokescreen around slowly sneaking CSAM scanning back in after the pushback last time? The "default on" behavior is suspect. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/apple-photo-scanning-csam-commun...

That whole incident was so misinformed. CSAM scanning takes place on the cloud with all the major players. It only has hashes for the worst of the worst stuff out there. What Apple (and others do) is allow the file to be scanned unencrypted on the server. What the feature Apple wanted to add was scan the files on the device and flag anything that gets a match. That file in question would be able to be decrypted on th…

[deleted]

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

#769
post #4

I don’t even use iCloud Photos and this was on by default. Very bad move by Apple to ship my photos off my device, without my permission, in any shape or form, I don’t care.

If you don't use iCloud Photos your photos are not shipped off your device.

I wish it were so! That was true until they turned this feature on by default.

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

#770
> Allow this device to privately match places in your photos with a global index maintained by Apple so you can search by almost any landmark or point of interest.

Couldn't they just make a k/v database that has coordinates of landmarks and then just pass the lat/long from the picture's EXIF in an API call for lookup in said DB when the user wants to make use of this feature? Isn't this part of why we have geotagging?

Post reply on HN