Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

From my network logs, my iPhone is always connected to Apple servers.

Moving the locked iPhone a little bit on the table, very often it establishes a connection to Apple. Why?

If I block all Apple servers, my iPhone tries continously connect to Apple servers - which seems to drain the battery very fast.

Some years ago, I asked Apple wheter it is possilbe to switch of these 'connections'. Answer: No, I have to trust Apple.

WH

I just think that there are better arguments against it without unnecessary exaggeration. So I wanted to be more specific on which images on your device are scanned according to that paper.

Obviously I should have phrased is better, like “about to be uploaded to iCloud”…

Borders in medieval Europe weren't nearly as necessary because the physical ability to travel was limited. Forget traveling from Germany to France - just going to the next town over was a life-threatening affair without assistance and wealth. Legally speaking, most peasant farmers were property of their lord's manor. But practically speaking, leaving the manor would be quite difficult on your own.

Many churches railed against motor vehicles because the extra freedom of movement they made possible also broke sexual mores - someone might use that car to engage in prostitution! You see similar arguments made today about birth control or abortion.

Prior to the Internet, American mass communication was effectively censored by the government under a series of legally odd excuses about public interest in efficiently-allocated spectrum. In other words, this was a technical limitation of radio, weaponized to make an end-run around the 1st Amendment. Getting rid of that technical limitation increased freedom. Even today, getting banned from Facebook for spouting too much right-wing nonsense isn't as censorious as, say, the FCC fining you millions of dollars for an accidental swear word.

Whether or not a technology actually winds up increasing or reducing freedom depends more on how it's distributed than on just how much of it there is. Technology doesn't care one way or the other about your freedom. However, freedom is intimately tied to another thing: equity. Systems that economically franchise their subjects, have low inequality, and keep their hierarchies in check, will see the "technology dividend" of increased freedom go to their subjects. Systems that impoverish people, have high inequality, and let their hierarchies grow without bound, will instead squander that dividend for themselves.

This is a feedback effect, too. Most technology is invented in systems with freedom and equality, and then that technology goes on to reinforce those freedoms. Unequal systems squander their subjects' ability to invent new technologies. We didn't see this with Nazi Germany, because the Allies wiped them off the map too quickly; but the Soviet Union lost their technological edge over time. The political hierarchy they had established to replace the prior capitalist one made technological innovation impractical. So, the more you use technology to restrict, censor, or oppress people, the more likely that your country falls behind economically and stagnates. The elites at the top of any hierarchical system - aside from the harshest dictatorships - absolutely do not want that happening.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/?la...

The short version is: all communication providers may include back doors and analyse messages of users with the same excuse. The follow-up is to make this mandatory. In practice, this will be a ban on any end-to-end encrypted communications.