The deceptive PR behind Apple’s “expanded protections for children”

Lawyerly word games. The e in e2e is the user, or a device loyal to them; malware on the user's device has always been understood as a subversion of e2e.

> hysterical screaming

Given the political/societal climate, it probably gets them more donations.

"The hypothesis that I have is that Apple wishes to distance itself from checking users' data. They've been fighting with the FBI and the federal government for years, they've been struggling with not reporting CSAM content to the NCMEC, they don't want to be involved in any of this anymore."

However there is close to zero evidence to support this idea. I was just reading something the other day that directly contradicted this; it suggested the relationship has been excellent save for a single, well-publicised dispute over unlocking an iPhone. In other words, the publicly aired dispute was an anomaly, not representative of the underlying relationship.

Even more, unless the pontificator works for Apple or the government, she is not a good position to summarise the relationship. Plainly put, it is not public information.

What does such baseless speculation achieve. Is it like spreading a meme. I dont get it.

"The worst part is: how do I put my money where my mouth is? Am I going back to using Linux on the desktop (2022 will be the year of Linux on the desktop, remember), debugging wifi drivers and tirelessly trying to make resume-from-suspend work? Am I getting a Pixel and putting GrapheneOS on it like a total nerd? FUCK."

Is having a computer with closed source wifi drivers and proper ACPI support more important than having a computer with an open OS that does not include an intentional backdoor.

Maybe the problem is not how to put your money where your mouth is, its how to put your mouth where your money is. What does GrapheneOS cost. Maybe this is not about money.

Options like GrapheneOS, even the mere idea of GrapheneOS, i.e., that there can be alternatives to BigTech's offerings, get buried underneath Apple marketing. Much of that marketing Apple gets for free. It comes from people who do not work for Apple.

Bloggers and others who discuss computers can help change that. They can also help Apple sail through any criticism (and they do).

I really don't understand how you're arguing as if you don't see the bigger picture. Is this is a subtle troll?

They are now scanning on the device. Regardless of how limited it is in its current capabilities, those capabilities are only prevented from being expanded by Apple's current policies. The policies enacted by the next incoming exec who isn't beholden to the promises of the previous can easily erode whatever 'guarantees' we've been given when they're being pressured for KPIs or impact or government requests or promotion season or whatever. This has happened time and again. It's been documented.

I really am at a loss how you can even attempt to be fair to Apple. This is a black and white issue. They need to keep scanning for crimes off our devices.

So to your answer your question, yes it is preferable to have them be able to scan all of the unencrypted photos on iCloud. We can encrypt things beforehand if need be. It is lunacy to have crime detecting software on the device in any fashion because it opens up the possibility for them to do more. The people in positions to ask for these things always want more information, more control. Always.

The above reads like conspiracy theory but over the past couple of decades it has been proven correct. It's honestly infuriating to see people defend what's going on in any way shape or form.

Exactly. An unknown mechanism adds hashes to a NGO subject to exactly what conditions?

This initiative makes me extremely leery of black boxes, to the extent that any algorithm between subject and accusation had damned well better be explainable outside the algorithm; else I as a jury member am bound to render a "not guilty" verdict.