221–230 of 860 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More access to markets subject to totalitarian regimes
I'm assuming you're kidding here, but if you look at the list of countries already selling/supporting iPhones, what's not on the US export ban list that's a totalitarian regime? https://www.apple.com/iphone/cellular/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But with a debian package you can choose not to accept the upgrade and see any funny business in the release source code..
That is technically true but in a real very practical sense everyone here using OSS absolutely is trusting a third party because they are not auditing every bit of code they run. For less technical people there is effectively zero difference between open and closed software. It’s really disingenuous to suggest that open source isn’t dependent on trust, you just change who you are trusting. Even if the case is someone…
With Apple you have to trust them and trust they don't get national security order.
I trust that if everyone who had the ability to audit OSS got a national security order it would leak and it would be impossible for many who live in other nations.
This CSAM Prevention initiative by Apple is a 180 degress change of their general message around privacy. Imagine investing hundreds of millions of dollars in pro-privacy programs, privacy features, privacy marketing, etc... just to pull this reverse card. Of course this is going to spark concern within their own ranks. It's like working for a food company that claims to use organic, non-processed, fair-trade ingredi…
That is, it seems like Apple really wanted to preserve "end-to-end" encryption, but they needed to do something to address the CSAM issue lest governments come down on them hard. Thus, my guess is, at least at the beginning, they saw this as a strong win for privacy. As the project progressed, however, it's like they missed "the forest for the trees" and didn't quite realize that their plan to protect end-to-end encryption doesn't mean that much if one "end" is now forced to run tech that can be abused by governments.
This kind of thing isn't that uncommon with large companies. To me it seems very similar to the Netflix Qwikster debacle of a decade ago. Netflix could very clearly see the writing on the wall, that the DVD-by-mail business needed to morph into a streaming business. But they fumbled the implementation, and what largely came across to the public was "you're raising prices by 40%."
I give Netflix huge props for actually reversing the decision pretty quickly - I find that exceptionally rare among large corporations. Remains to be seen if Apple will do the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple - our laws haven't evolved with technology. That's why your mail has about a million times more protection than your email.
Yup. That's what happens when the country is ran by a bunch of old lawyers.
Meanwhile, it's predominantly young people who freely hand their information to mega-corps to be disseminated and distributed. Outside your (our) bubble young people don't give two craps about privacy.
Can someone explain how Apple being coaxed or coerced into searching all of our personal devices for illegal files by federal law enforcement is not an unconstitutional warrantless search?
I am not a Lawyer, but my understanding is: The wording of the CSAM law is that content should be scanned when uploaded. That condition "upon upload" triggers the 3rd party doctrine. Apple has gone above and beyond here, not the actual US gov. So, the bill of rights doesn't apply to Apple's decision to scan content on device, just before it is uploaded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, thats exactly how i feel. I'd still hate it if my iCloud uploads are scanned but I'm already assuming that anyway. But the fact that my iOS device can potentially report me to any authorities, for whatever reason, is crossing a line that makes it impossible to ever own an iPhone again. I bought my first one in 2007 so I'm not saying this lightly.. Does anybody know if this policy will extend to macOS too?
I think you’re going to have to go to a flip phone, then. Not to be, uh, flippant. Because this feels like a rather obvious slippery slope that Google will be compelled to slide down as well. Feels like the only way to avoid such a thing would be dumb phone + Linux laptop/desktop.
In their attempt to make this extra private by scanning 'on device', I think they've managed to make it feel worse. If they scan my iCloud photos in iCloud, well lots of companies scan stuff when you upload it. It's on their servers, they're responsible for it. They don't want to be hosting CSAM. It feels much worse them turning your own, trusty iPhone against you. I know that isn't how you should look at it, but tha…
Wild thought: could on-device scanning be considered a violation of the 3rd Amendment (quartering soldiers [enforcing agents of the government] in peoples homes [property]) ?
I think warantless search is a much stronger argument, though.
Sure, scanning a personal device vs. data stored in the cloud feels different because you supposedly own the device. But you don't own the software that runs on it, so the distinction seems artificial to me.
This CSAM Prevention initiative by Apple is a 180 degress change of their general message around privacy. Imagine investing hundreds of millions of dollars in pro-privacy programs, privacy features, privacy marketing, etc... just to pull this reverse card. Of course this is going to spark concern within their own ranks. It's like working for a food company that claims to use organic, non-processed, fair-trade ingredi…
I actually think something else happened, and to be honest I think many at Apple behind this decision are likely pretty surprised by the blowback. That is, it seems like Apple really wanted to preserve "end-to-end" encryption, but they needed to do something to address the CSAM issue lest governments come down on them hard. Thus, my guess is, at least at the beginning, they saw this as a strong win for privacy. As th…
You would think apple would get ahead of this story and mention … or maybe they don’t have any E2E plans at all.
Can someone explain how Apple being coaxed or coerced into searching all of our personal devices for illegal files by federal law enforcement is not an unconstitutional warrantless search?
They’re not coaxed nor coerced