9 ms·

> It’s truly disappointing that Apple got so hung up on its particular vision of privacy that it ended up betraying the fulcrum of user control: being able to t

> It’s truly disappointing that Apple got so hung up on its particular vision of privacy that it ended up betraying the fulcrum of user control: being able to trust that your device is truly yours. Well said. It's very easy to understand that content on a physical disk I own will not be scanned by some government-friendly surveillance program, and content I upload to somebody else's servers will. I am comfortable with [subsets of] my files existing on both sides of this distinction, but only because I understand it. Now Apple is letting the surveillance apparatus reach into my own physical hardware, blurring the lines with some overwrought, proprietary crypto-gobbledygook solution. Given the details they've provided, I get why they might have thought this was in line with their general privacy ethos of keeping everything on-device, but the fact is that it is too complicated to build a reliable understanding of in my mental model of my own data privacy--and that's for somebody (me) who is quite technical and has even dabbled in crypto. Now that I no longer understand Apple's practices as a steward of my private data, I can no longer trust them with it. It's a real shame.

dylan604 5y ago
>It's very easy to understand that content on a physical disk I own will not be scanned by some government-friendly surveillance program, and content I upload to somebody else's servers will. I am comfortable with [subsets of] my files existing on both sides of this distinction, but only because I understand it. According to Apple, the only content being scanned are the images you are storing in iCloud. So how is this breaking your rule?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > According to Apple, the only content being scanned are the images you are storing in iCloud Thats the whole point of this debate. TODAY (if you trust apple is honest) it's only stuff being stored in icloud. But there is no technical reason for this to be true - just a "policy" reason. The scanner is already deployed to devices, we already let in the trojan horse. Tomorrow, the rules could change (and we might not know)
- caconym_ 5y ago
  This is breaking my "rule" because the detection is being moved device-side as part of a complicated scheme I don't believe it's realistically possible for an outsider to have a complete and persistently correct understanding of. Thus, I do not trust myself to fully understand the attack surface I'm exposing, and that is something I'm not personally comfortable with. I thought this was fairly clear from the later parts of my comment.
- Clubber 5y ago
  "The USA PATRIOT act will only be used against terrorist threats." 12 years later, Edward Snowden proved otherwise. The world is a much different place than when I grew up in the 80s. I can't imagine what it would look like in another 40 years. I hope I'm dead by then, because it doesn't seem like it's going to a place I want to live in.
dpkonofa 5y ago
I feel like there's a third option here, though, in that Apple is very likely trying to get ahead of what's likely to be requests from the government that they won't be able to just not abide by. This already happens to every hosting and storage provider and it's entirely plausible that politicians will start publicly wringing their hands to try and justify an actual invasion of privacy where "the government" will be able to scan devices (and even require it from manufacturers) in the interest of "saving the children". This (and I realize it assumes good intentions on behalf of the actors involved) seems to be an attempt to get ahead of that kind of situation by saying "we'll scan things if we're 99% sure they're breaking the law" but we don't want to violate people's privacy. The iCloud vs Facebook comparison is great and noble and all but how long do we honestly think that'll stand up before the politicians move past that argument and onto the next one. When it stops being about the children, it'll be about the terrorists. When it stops being about the terrorists, it'll be about whatever the next excuse is. This seems like a compromise between those unfortunate scenarios - upholding privacy (we don't see the content) while still attempting to solve for the problems that privacy inherently allows for (we can still identify CP).
- nullc 5y ago
  > Apple is very likely trying to get ahead of what's likely to be requests from the government that they won't be able to just not abide by No. Don't make that excuses for them. If it were true it would be a shocking revelation which might result in thousands of cases being overturned. If the NCMEC searches by providers are being done as a result of government coercion then the fourth amendment requires there be a search warrant. Since there isn't one, these searches would all be unlawful if there was coercion. Thus far, tech companies like Google and AOL have gone out of their way to testify that there is no coercion (I haven't found a case involving Apple). If there were coercion it would be a shocking conspiracy. I wouldn't argue that it's impossible: The USG has done some shockingly unethical and illegal things in the past but it fails occams razor. Moreover, the excuse doesn't actually make apple look better: Instead of being a corporation compromising user privacy and security for commercial gain, they'd be an active participant in a conspiracy to violate the US constitution. Apple is doing this because they believe they'll make more money this way, and because they believe the complaints raised here about people rejecting devices betraying their trust are fundamentally inconsequential. Show them otherwise, don't make excuses. Don't blame the government. The government may well be to blame too, but Apple's actions are apple's fault.
speleding 5y ago
Whether scanning happens on the iPhone or in iCloud does not counter the problem that the dragnet nature of this makes it easy to weaponise. Getting CSAM pictures in the iCloud photo library of someone you don't like does not even require physical access sometimes: For example, WhatsApp has a "Save to camera roll" option that's enabled by default: just send a bunch of bad pictures via WhatsApp, those will get synced to iCloud after a little while, and now that person is in big trouble.

dylan604 5y ago

>It's very easy to understand that content on a physical disk I own will not be scanned by some government-friendly surveillance program, and content I upload to somebody else's servers will. I am comfortable with [subsets of] my files existing on both sides of this distinction, but only because I understand it. According to Apple, the only content being scanned are the images you are storing in iCloud. So how is this breaking your rule?

vineyardmike 5y ago
> According to Apple, the only content being scanned are the images you are storing in iCloud Thats the whole point of this debate. TODAY (if you trust apple is honest) it's only stuff being stored in icloud. But there is no technical reason for this to be true - just a "policy" reason. The scanner is already deployed to devices, we already let in the trojan horse. Tomorrow, the rules could change (and we might not know)
caconym_ 5y ago
This is breaking my "rule" because the detection is being moved device-side as part of a complicated scheme I don't believe it's realistically possible for an outsider to have a complete and persistently correct understanding of. Thus, I do not trust myself to fully understand the attack surface I'm exposing, and that is something I'm not personally comfortable with. I thought this was fairly clear from the later parts of my comment.
Clubber 5y ago
"The USA PATRIOT act will only be used against terrorist threats." 12 years later, Edward Snowden proved otherwise. The world is a much different place than when I grew up in the 80s. I can't imagine what it would look like in another 40 years. I hope I'm dead by then, because it doesn't seem like it's going to a place I want to live in.

dpkonofa 5y ago

I feel like there's a third option here, though, in that Apple is very likely trying to get ahead of what's likely to be requests from the government that they won't be able to just not abide by. This already happens to every hosting and storage provider and it's entirely plausible that politicians will start publicly wringing their hands to try and justify an actual invasion of privacy where "the government" will be able to scan devices (and even require it from manufacturers) in the interest of "saving the children". This (and I realize it assumes good intentions on behalf of the actors involved) seems to be an attempt to get ahead of that kind of situation by saying "we'll scan things if we're 99% sure they're breaking the law" but we don't want to violate people's privacy. The iCloud vs Facebook comparison is great and noble and all but how long do we honestly think that'll stand up before the politicians move past that argument and onto the next one. When it stops being about the children, it'll be about the terrorists. When it stops being about the terrorists, it'll be about whatever the next excuse is. This seems like a compromise between those unfortunate scenarios - upholding privacy (we don't see the content) while still attempting to solve for the problems that privacy inherently allows for (we can still identify CP).

nullc 5y ago
> Apple is very likely trying to get ahead of what's likely to be requests from the government that they won't be able to just not abide by No. Don't make that excuses for them. If it were true it would be a shocking revelation which might result in thousands of cases being overturned. If the NCMEC searches by providers are being done as a result of government coercion then the fourth amendment requires there be a search warrant. Since there isn't one, these searches would all be unlawful if there was coercion. Thus far, tech companies like Google and AOL have gone out of their way to testify that there is no coercion (I haven't found a case involving Apple). If there were coercion it would be a shocking conspiracy. I wouldn't argue that it's impossible: The USG has done some shockingly unethical and illegal things in the past but it fails occams razor. Moreover, the excuse doesn't actually make apple look better: Instead of being a corporation compromising user privacy and security for commercial gain, they'd be an active participant in a conspiracy to violate the US constitution. Apple is doing this because they believe they'll make more money this way, and because they believe the complaints raised here about people rejecting devices betraying their trust are fundamentally inconsequential. Show them otherwise, don't make excuses. Don't blame the government. The government may well be to blame too, but Apple's actions are apple's fault.

speleding 5y ago

Whether scanning happens on the iPhone or in iCloud does not counter the problem that the dragnet nature of this makes it easy to weaponise. Getting CSAM pictures in the iCloud photo library of someone you don't like does not even require physical access sometimes: For example, WhatsApp has a "Save to camera roll" option that's enabled by default: just send a bunch of bad pictures via WhatsApp, those will get synced to iCloud after a little while, and now that person is in big trouble.