3 ms·

People do care about privacy, but not in that absolute sense. You think privacy is 100% or 0%, but vast majority of the public don't think so.

friedman23 5y ago
So you would be in favor of installing cameras in all homes that detects child abuse, murder, and rape in an automated fashion? It can use microphones to detect people in distress. This would prevent many more heinous crimes than what apple is proposing we do and it will only be used for detecting horrible acts. By your logic this would be acceptable and we could all still claim to value privacy.
- temp8964 5y ago
  I don't think so. This is a case by case reasoning. There is no straight logic leads to jumping from scanning iCloud photos to installing cameras in homes.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    The principle is that it's fine to install surveillance if we are preventing horrible things from happening.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  We are discussing a specific set of technologies. That said, camera's are already spreading pretty quickly (check out ring doorbell and friends) and homeowners are voluntarily registering these with local police departments. So yes, people don't mind if they are recorded going into and out of their own house and voluntary let police review this footage. Again, I think folks are overstating the "huge" damage to apple's brand.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    People haven't had ring forced on them inside their homes yet. Like I said in another comment, the principle is whether forcing surveillance on people to prevent crimes is ok. The set of technologies is irrelevant, Apple is going through personal information that has not been voluntarily shared with the public by the content owner to detect criminal activities. I don't see how that is different from installing microphones and cameras inside people's homes with the passive ability to detect crime. Why can't a landlord install this kind of technology in their tenant's apartments?
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
exactly. This seems a pretty low intrusion way to deal with a somewhat important issue to a lot of folks. They already had access to these icloud photos on icloud, this was in a way something to keep the scanning OFF their servers. I really continue to doubt this is going to have huge damage to apple's brand. More likely - others will rush to copy this (or be forced to by govts elected by people who want this).

friedman23 5y ago

So you would be in favor of installing cameras in all homes that detects child abuse, murder, and rape in an automated fashion? It can use microphones to detect people in distress. This would prevent many more heinous crimes than what apple is proposing we do and it will only be used for detecting horrible acts. By your logic this would be acceptable and we could all still claim to value privacy.

temp8964 5y ago
I don't think so. This is a case by case reasoning. There is no straight logic leads to jumping from scanning iCloud photos to installing cameras in homes.
- friedman23 5y ago
  The principle is that it's fine to install surveillance if we are preventing horrible things from happening.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
We are discussing a specific set of technologies. That said, camera's are already spreading pretty quickly (check out ring doorbell and friends) and homeowners are voluntarily registering these with local police departments. So yes, people don't mind if they are recorded going into and out of their own house and voluntary let police review this footage. Again, I think folks are overstating the "huge" damage to apple's brand.
- friedman23 5y ago
  People haven't had ring forced on them inside their homes yet. Like I said in another comment, the principle is whether forcing surveillance on people to prevent crimes is ok. The set of technologies is irrelevant, Apple is going through personal information that has not been voluntarily shared with the public by the content owner to detect criminal activities. I don't see how that is different from installing microphones and cameras inside people's homes with the passive ability to detect crime. Why can't a landlord install this kind of technology in their tenant's apartments?

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

exactly. This seems a pretty low intrusion way to deal with a somewhat important issue to a lot of folks. They already had access to these icloud photos on icloud, this was in a way something to keep the scanning OFF their servers. I really continue to doubt this is going to have huge damage to apple's brand. More likely - others will rush to copy this (or be forced to by govts elected by people who want this).