What is triald and why is it taking so much disk space?

Post by boredtofears » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 11:58 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #75

skygazer wrote: post #9

I trust that Apple isn't doing anything nefarious here, but at the same time, I'm quite grateful that others aren't so trusting. I want the "white hat" suspicious and skeptical rooting through everything. In fact, I don't think I'd trust Apple so much if it weren't for those that don't trust them. Their constructive distrust enables my trust.

Why do you trust that? Apple has specifically admitted to having a nefarious plan to scan your local files without consent and further use your computer (also without consent) to report on you to law enforcement. This may well be that implementation. The latest desktop and mobile OSes are quietly shipping code to enable this, despite the uproar that happened when Apple announced it. They let people believe they were…

Post by sneak » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 11:59 AM UTC

greggsy wrote: post #99

sneak wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210903214920/https://www.apple... (linked from the above-linked wikipedia article as citation for the clientside scanning feature documentation on wikipedia) https://web.archive.org/web/20210903214920/https://www.apple... Apple said they were doing it. Apple never subsequently said they were not doing it. (They did say some things that implied that they MIGHT not do it, designed to make…

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The client side code isn’t looking at your files, it’s looking for a signature. If you don’t have the signature, it won’t do anything. I’m a privacy advocate, and this approach actually increased my trust as it was a more palatable option than allowing unfettered server side access in response to LEO requests (which happens in extreme cases, but not on a routine basis.)

Post by lupire » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 12:06 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #103

greggsy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The client side code isn’t looking at your files, it’s looking for a signature. If you don’t have the signature, it won’t do anything. I’m a privacy advocate, and this approach actually increased my trust as it was a more palatable option than allowing unfettered server side access in response to LEO requests (which happens in extreme cases, but not on a routine basis.)

Signature scanning of my private files without consent, as well as any potential subsequent reporting to law enforcement, are both human rights violations, if you believe what Apple claims to: that "privacy is a human right". Privacy includes privacy to break the law until and unless specific probable cause is established in a court . Companies have no moral or legal obligation to get involved in mass scanning to ena…

Post by fer » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 12:08 PM UTC

smcn wrote: post #56

skygazer wrote: post #9

I trust that Apple isn't doing anything nefarious here, but at the same time, I'm quite grateful that others aren't so trusting. I want the "white hat" suspicious and skeptical rooting through everything. In fact, I don't think I'd trust Apple so much if it weren't for those that don't trust them. Their constructive distrust enables my trust.

What's the phrase? "Trust but verify"?

Post by boredtofears » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 12:20 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #106

boredtofears wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every cloud provider does CSAM scanning or they'll be chased down by certain three letter gov agencies and/or US senators looking to score easy political points.

This thread is about local file scanning and has nothing to do with the cloud. Apple refers to all photos on Apple devices under the "iCloud Photos" brand name. Apple is within their rights to scan files on their servers. They already do this now, as you note. This thread is about something else: Apple OS bundled malware that scans files on non-Apple-owned machines without consent, even files that have not left the u…