681–690 of 860 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True E2E means the middle can't decrypt anything. You meant false E2E.
No, I meant true E2E encryption. Unless I'm missing something in your comment.
As I see people straining to defend Apple, coming up with all types of reasons about on-device image checking will not be abused or expanded, about how people shouldn't really expect to not be scanned, I can't help but just think of Apple's own words and current public position on privacy. Here's their privacy page: https://www.apple.com/privacy/ First sentence: "Privacy is a fundamental human right." Apple has adopt…
It will hurt their sales. It will hurt Apple.
They will have to walk this back or face devaluation.
They’ve already done a ton of damage to their brand. It’s really hard to believe they would sacrifice their brand like this. This is Apple.
They made their reputation on privacy.
You are 100% right. You cannot square the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This blog post got a lot of commentary on HN a couple days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28118350 . iMessages are already E2E encrypted, but you are correct, iCloud backups are decryptable with a warrant (and that was reportedly added at the FBI's request). But I agree with Ben Thompson's point in that blog post, that it's OK to not have strong, unbreakable encryption be the default, and that it's still p…
> But with Apple's CSAM proposal is NOT possible to have an iPhone that Apple isn't continuously scanning. As currently implemented, iOS will only scan photos to be uploaded to iCloud Photos. If iCloud Photos is not enabled, then Apple isn't scanning the phone.
We don't actually know what is implemented. We only know what Apple's PR machine is saying about it, or do we have the source code somewhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we consider the phone: - as part of the home? - as part of the human body? In either cases we’re allowed to do crime at home as long as no-one knows it.
No, you’re not allowed to do crime even if you kill all witnesses and destroy all evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As currently implemented, iOS will only scan photos to be uploaded to iCloud Photos. If iCloud Photos is not enabled, then Apple isn't scanning the phone. Except for the "oops, due to an unexpected bug in our code, every image, document, and message on your device was being continuously scanned" mea culpa we will see a few months after this goes live.
Except for the "oops, due to an unexpected bug in our code, every image, document, and message on your device was being continuously scanned" mea culpa we will see a few months after this goes live. Only images that match the hashes of the database of CSAM held by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that are uploaded to iCloud Photos are checked. Based on their technical documents, it's not…
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…
In a few years, all the pedophiles will stop using iPhone, and then only innocent people will be scanned in perpetuity. Remember, if someone makes new CSAM, it won't match any hashes so even "new" pedophiles won't get caught by this. So really, the steady state is just us regular folks getting scanned. As the years go on, what is defined as CSAM will morph into "objectionable material", and will then include "misinfo…
Sounds like “mission accomplished” for Apple then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authoritarian countries are the least of the worries. There's a large class of illegal imagery that is policed in democratic countries: copyrighted media. We are only two steps away from having your phone rat you to the MPAA because you downloaded a movie and stored it on your phone. I can guarantee that some industry bigwigs are salivating at the prospect of this tech. Imagine youtube copyright strikes but local to…
One reason I haven't used itunes in years, and don't use iOS, is that I have a huge collection of mp3s. It's almost all of music which I bought and burned off CDs over decades, and it's become just stupidly difficult to organize your own mp3 collection via Apple's players. Even back in the ipod days, you could put your mp3s on an ipod but you needed piracy ware to rip them back off. I can easily see this leading to p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The least of the biases at play, here, is the change aversion bias. Making things "opt-out", without even making it hard, dramatically increases the number of people who opt-in. It can be used for many reasons. For example, the UK switched it’s organ donation laws from opt-in to opt-out. Another example, my government has decided that them selling their citizen's personal information to garages, insurance companies,…
For example, the UK switched its organ donation laws from opt-in to opt-out. We have, yet oddly, it's still called "organ donation".