A Message to Our Customers (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#21

Post by starkd » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #14

There is a story that has information direct from the horses mouth on how Apple will approach this as opposed to how Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and the rest already do. https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/10/interview-apples-head-of-p... Highlights: Unlike Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and the rest Apple has not been scanning your online data (iCloud) for the past decade. When this is turned on, only images you a…

I don't think the concern is scanning and uploading images. This could be justified in some cases. But once you open this door, it can easily expand to scan for other things. And people don't always read the notices for every update.

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#22

Post by mfer » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

idunnoman wrote: post #13

It is remarkable that Tim so clearly understood the problem in 2016. With that one post, Apple and Tim earned trust from a group of people that trust very few. And in an instance, both Apple and Tim have now burned all of it.

This whole this is complicated. Trying to do right for people on privacy while also doing right by endangered children. I like what Alex Stamos had to say about it... https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/142405454287900...

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#23

Post by post_break » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #17

post_break wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very similar when your ISP choices are Comcast and AT&T or insert other horrible ISP. If they don't do an about face on this I'm pretty much done with iPhone forever. Yes Google loves my location/search data, but what are my options? It's so frustrating.

Google has been scanning everything in your account for kiddie porn for the past decade. >a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston suspect's Gmail account https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le... In the case of a false positive, that information lives on Google's server where it can be subpoenaed and misused…

That’s all great and all but Google hasn’t been touting privacy features as a selling point. With Apples decision to move forward with this I’m not beholden to any company for my phone. At least with android I can side load and do what I want.

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#24

Post by starkd » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #22

idunnoman wrote: post #13

It is remarkable that Tim so clearly understood the problem in 2016. With that one post, Apple and Tim earned trust from a group of people that trust very few. And in an instance, both Apple and Tim have now burned all of it.

This whole this is complicated. Trying to do right for people on privacy while also doing right by endangered children. I like what Alex Stamos had to say about it... https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/142405454287900...

There seems to be an ethos in tech that says if you can do something to prevent this evil in society you are obliged to do it. No consideration for underlying principles, and no distinction between what are values and what are principles. You compromise values all the time. Principles are steadfast.

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#25

Post by GeekyBear » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

starkd wrote: post #21

GeekyBear wrote: post #14

There is a story that has information direct from the horses mouth on how Apple will approach this as opposed to how Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and the rest already do. https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/10/interview-apples-head-of-p... Highlights: Unlike Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and the rest Apple has not been scanning your online data (iCloud) for the past decade. When this is turned on, only images you a…

I don't think the concern is scanning and uploading images. This could be justified in some cases. But once you open this door, it can easily expand to scan for other things. And people don't always read the notices for every update.

We already know that Apple will publicly fight Government demands to break device encryption.

They have already proven that.

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#26

Post by Tepix » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

What are the best options for a Linux laptop these days?

I switched back from a Dell XPS 13 9350 running Ubuntu to a Macbook Air M1 quite recently.

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#27

Post by starkd » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

firebaze wrote: post #9

I'll never buy anything from Apple again. Apple was to me the walled but good-willed garden, caring about their profits by respecting their customers and taking a stance against widespread anti-democratic tendencies. I own an iWatch, two iPhones and two MacBook Pros (one privately owned, one from my current employer). The selling points of apple to me were to provide excellent hardware combined with excellent softwar…

this is why I refuse to get into the habit of using a smart phone. I'm totally against child porn, but, while doing nothing to fight child porn, it will allow a foothold to eventually scan for who knows what. Criminals will easily evade it by turning off the scanning.

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#28

Post by GeekyBear » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #23

GeekyBear wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has been scanning everything in your account for kiddie porn for the past decade. >a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston suspect's Gmail account https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le... In the case of a false positive, that information lives on Google's server where it can be subpoenaed and misused…

That’s all great and all but Google hasn’t been touting privacy features as a selling point. With Apples decision to move forward with this I’m not beholden to any company for my phone. At least with android I can side load and do what I want.

Not having any data on a single false positives ever leave your device is MUCH more private than having that data exist on Google's servers.

Also, I have huge doubts that Google is reviewing the data to be sure it isn't a false positive before handing it over to the authorities.

They very famously refuse to hire expensive human beings when flawed machine learning algorithms are cheaper.

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#29

Post by shuckles » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:30 PM UTC

idunnoman wrote: post #20

snowwrestler wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If our starting belief is “the government will secretly force Apple to do things no matter what the law says,” then why do we care what Apple says or announces, at all? Why get mad at Apple if we have already conceded that they are powerless before the government in general?

This is a good point. I do believe we should be skeptical of these companies stated positions unless we can see a profit motive. The previous stance that Apple said they had was "we value your privacy and you should pay us for that". They also demonstrated in the case in 2016 with terrorists and the FBI that they meant it. In this case, they have flipped entirely, and are now adding features without being compelled t…

So what’s the profit motive?

Re: A Message to Our Customers (2016)

#30

Post by slg » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #19

slg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is the functional difference between the government demanding Apple add code to break device encryption, and the government demanding Apple add signatures that extend their on-device scanning beyond its intended scope of CSAM? Is this meant as a rhetorical question? Because they are pretty different from both a technical and policy perspective. Breaking encryption means the government can have access to everyth…

The case this 2016 letter is about was not a request to break phone encryption in general. The government asked Apple to assist only in getting into a few specific phones for a specific reason, under the authority of a valid warrant. And many folks thought Apple had a strong legal case to say no. Apple can’t search phones under the technology they announced, so the government can’t ask Apple for information about wha…

>Remember that (as the Twitter thread reminds us) the entire CSAM scanning effort is voluntary. The government is not forcing Apple to scan for CSAM, so how would they force Apple to scan for anything else?

Which is the point that you seem to largely be ignoring. Apple has its own motivations here and it isn't purely a question of what the government is forcing them to do. Apple knows that once encryption is broken, it is broken for everything. This new proposal is much more targeted and gives Apple control while also preserving their ability to say no on technical grounds for further privacy invasions. That is why they would prefer it over the previous government proposal.