5 ms·
Yes but it probably took additional code to only scan pictures that are synced to iCloud. Probably not monumental task, to change to scan every picture.
by unionpivo 5y ago
Yes but it probably took additional code to only scan pictures that are synced to iCloud.
Probably not monumental task, to change to scan every picture.
- nicce 5y agoI have to remind again, that iOS is a blackbox, closed source system. All this speculation applies also for a moment before they added anything. They might have had this code ready for years already. All we have is what they say. It is already very trivial to scan everything on on your device and send that metadata. Few lines of code. At the moment when they say about scanning everything in phone publicly without opt-out, then we should be worried. Once again, there is no way telling what they are doing already.
- unionpivo 5y agoThe difference is now every government knows too. They can't pretend they don't have the capability. And if they can scan for CP, why can't they scan for "whatever" else instead.
- avianlyric 5y agoiOS has been running complex Neural Nets on all your images for years now. It powers all their social features and search. Apple have always had the capability, and have been advertising it as central selling point of new versions of iOS for years. That ship sailed along time ago.
- adventured 5y agoWhat changed is Apple just signaled to the governments of the world what it's willing to do toward abusing user privacy and exactly how it can work. And hey, Apple, if you're willing to do that, why not just go a bit further and do this, because we're asking you to or else (and now we know you're obviously even more morally flexible than what you used to present yourself as). Before that, Apple put up a front that they would fight for user privacy at every turn. They pitched that over and over and over again as a corporate ethos, a selling point. That was the facade at least, even if one is cynical and wants to pretend it was a lie. Now they're not even presenting the facade, which will open the flood gates dramatically. They went from a supposedly resisting agent, to a morally gray and willing agent at a minimum. Apple dumped an enormous vat of blood into the shark infested waters.
- nicce 5y agoI think I disagree. Current move was improvement for user privacy, compared to what it used to be. Abuse is only on speculation, not on what has actually been done.
- JackGreyhat 5y agoSpeculation as in "whats technically possible".
- pseudalopex 5y agoBefore is speculation. After is too late. When are people allowed to object?
- nicce 5y agoNeural Net might be overkill as an example. Antivirus software has existed since 1980s[1]. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software
- JackGreyhat 5y agoDoes an AV report its findings to local govs?
- m4rtink 5y agoThis is not the first time they have run into this - due the to AppStore being a walled garden they are the sole gate keeper who decides what goes in and what not. Makes sure the users are safe and everything. Perfect, right ? Well, until protesters want to use an app in the store to coordinate their protests yet the government wants you to reject it, so the protesters can't use it: https://www.applefritter.com/content/teargas-walled-garden-ios-threat-democracy https://www.applefritter.com/content/teargas-walled-garden-i... With users not being able to install the app themselves Apple is the single point of failure with no plausible deniability like Android (any any sane OS in general) has. And they did reject the app. And just a few months before this happened I attended a talk about free software from FSF and they mentioned just the same thing about iOS and the gate keeper being the single point of failure a repressive regime can apply pressure on. Turned on to not be far fetched at all...