4 ms·
It's not the device that's less secure or private in this context, it's the services. There's no reason you couldn't just continue using your NAS for photo back
by artimaeis 5y ago
It's not the device that's less secure or private in this context, it's the services. There's no reason you couldn't just continue using your NAS for photo backup and Signal for encrypted-communications completely unaffected by this.
Apple seems to not have interest in users devices, which makes sense -- they're not liable for them. They _do_ seem interested in protecting the data that they house, which makes sense, because they're liable for it and have a responsibility to remove/report CSAM that they're hosting.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- adriancr 5y agoSo they should do that scanning server side at their boundary instead of pushing software to run on phones with potential to extend scope later if no push back.
- gowld 5y agoThey don't want to do it serve side because they don't want to see your unencrypted data!
- adriancr 5y agoWell good thing they're looking at it anyway client side...
- dustyharddrive 5y agoApple already holds the key to iCloud Photos content, and regularly responds to search warrants.
- trangus_1985 5y agoThat's not the issue. The issue is that they have shipped spyware to my device. That's a massive breach of trust. I suspect that this time next year, I'll still be on ios, despite my posturing. I'm certainly going to address icloud in the next few weeks - specifically, disusing it. However, I would be surprised if I'm still on ios a year or two after that. What Apple has done here isn't horrible in the absolute sense. Instead, it's a massive betrayal of trust with minimal immediate intrusiveness; and yet, a giant klaxon that their platform dominance in terms of privacy is coming to an end