341–350 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s like building a tank and saying it’ll only be used for deliveries. Once the infrastructure is in place on every device to detect arbitrary images/messages on the device the switch will be flipped.
The infrastructure for detecting files does not need to be that complex. We are talking something a single engineer can do in less than an hour.
What is going on with people - why on earth are people overreacting to this. Apple is doing something unconditionally good, and people are posting about how it is bad? I mean the people writing the opposition to this change just sound pants-on-head stupid, and obviously suffer from sort of mental health problem (such as this[0]). Imagine the poor NSA having to know this evil and doing nothing, and Apple is doing it's…
1: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> let's face it, if you wait for the politicos to come up with a solution and force it through with legislation, they really would put in actual backdoors and encryption bans given half the chance. They've tried to do this for decades and have failed. If they're going to do it then let it be on record. Let's see how voters like it.
Bad news, buddy: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/?la... ETA: in short, about a month ago they did get the votes, at least in the EU, and it's now "allowed" for providers to scan all content. In a little while, they're going to have a vote to change "allowed" to "required", and we have no reason to think it'll go differently.
There is no sense making laws you can't enforce. It erodes trust and credibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most likely you can’t browse your photos online anymore, unless they add some kind of method to export keys from the device(s). I speculate that it is possible to lose all of your data if you lose all of your devices. There might be option to create local backup from device keys, so it would not be the dead end.
Given the lack of an explicit announcement this seems very unlikely. I don’t think Apple are stupid, it would have been a clear PR win if they said “we’re adding E2EE”. Given no explicit statement, and how drastically it changes the nature of their service, I don’t think your speculation is justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CSAM scanning is not opt-in. Sure, you could stop using iCloud. That’s opt-out.
That’s not correct. This applies only to iCloud Photo Library, not to iCloud as a whole. iCloud Photo Library is an optional feature, and there are numerous alternatives.
It’s really ridiculous to try to call this “opt-in”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's always GPG and a whole litany of other tools and apps for those who know what they are doing in terms of privacy. And it's always there also for whoever they claim to want to catch, so this measure is useless. This is not protecting anyone, Apple might very well be anticipating the regulation, but that does not automatically deserve our praise. We should fight against this implementation and any regulation…
> And it's always there also for whoever they claim to want to catch, so this measure is useless. Right. This will, a) catch the low hanging fruit type of criminal and b) keep honest people honest while forcing them to give up something for nothing.
That risk is not tiny, can you imagine any authoritarian government asking a compliant Apple to remove inconvenient pictures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad news, buddy: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/?la... ETA: in short, about a month ago they did get the votes, at least in the EU, and it's now "allowed" for providers to scan all content. In a little while, they're going to have a vote to change "allowed" to "required", and we have no reason to think it'll go differently.
Bad news for the EU maybe, if that were to pass. That sort of thing never passed muster in the US. There is always a huge backlash because it infringes on the speech rights of both companies and individuals. You'd essentially be forcing banks to build in backdoors that criminals could use, and also making it so that only criminals can use true E2E encryption. There is no sense making laws you can't enforce. It erodes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad news for the EU maybe, if that were to pass. That sort of thing never passed muster in the US. There is always a huge backlash because it infringes on the speech rights of both companies and individuals. You'd essentially be forcing banks to build in backdoors that criminals could use, and also making it so that only criminals can use true E2E encryption. There is no sense making laws you can't enforce. It erodes…
If you think EU policy only impacts the EU, you didn't pay attention to what happened with GDPR. Some companies might scan only EU-to-EU communications, some might scan communications where only one end is in the EU, and some might just scan everything because why build two completely separate systems rather than just doing whatever is compliant everywhere you operate?
I don't think any of these scanned systems or policies will survive in the long run. They're inherently insecure and won't lead to growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they could, as iCloud Photos is not e2e (Apple can read all of it) and they turn over the user data on over 30,000 users per year to the USG without even a warrant. This is just farce.
Does that 30k number include iCloud Photo data? Do you have a citation for this?
FISA orders are not warrants and do not require probable cause; the FISA Amendments Act Section 702 spying that goes on (aka PRISM internally to the IC) pulls data directly from cloud provider systems without a search warrant and was cited by Ed Snowden as one of the main reasons he came forward.