4 ms·

> but they needed to do something to address the CSAM issue lest governments come down on them hard. If Apple does not have decryption keys for iCloud content,

> but they needed to do something to address the CSAM issue lest governments come down on them hard. If Apple does not have decryption keys for iCloud content, they can't decrypt it, only the user can. For Apple, it's not technically feasible, and the law supports that. Apple has now demonstrated that it is technically feasible to overcome this challenge by doing things "pre-encryption" on the user's device. From a user's point-of-view, Apple's privacy is worth nothing. It makes no sense for them to encrypt anything, if they leak all data before encryption. Children today, terrorism tomorrow. All your messages, photos, and audio, can be leaked. There are thousands of people at Apple involved in the release of any single feature, from devs and testers, to managers all the way up to VPs. The fact that this feature made it to production proofs that Apple is an organization that I can't trust with my privacy. Their privacy team must be pulling their hairs out. They better start looking for a new job.

unityByFreedom 5y ago
> Apple has now demonstrated that it is technically feasible to overcome this challenge by doing things "pre-encryption" on the user's device. > From a legal stand point, they are now screwed, because now they _must_ do it. That's not the right takeaway. They're only required to turn over data to which they have access. If they continue writing software that makes it so they don't have access to the data, then they do not need to turn it over because they can't. The fact that you can write software to store or transmit unencrypted data is irrelevant.
- mrweasel 5y ago
  Because Apple write the software, there will never be a time where they do not at some point have access to the data.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Right, but there is a big difference between them having the software in place already to steal files off a phone for a government, versus a government telling them "you must deploy this new software." In the past Apple has said no to writing any new spyware for the government. They would not be able to say no very easily if the software is already on the devices.
    - shuckles 5y ago
      Apple has the software to “steal files off a phone” through iCloud Backup. Whether they do this for governments is a policy matter.
      - unityByFreedom 5y ago
        That's on their servers, not your device. The difference is the source of people's outrage.

unityByFreedom 5y ago

> Apple has now demonstrated that it is technically feasible to overcome this challenge by doing things "pre-encryption" on the user's device. > From a legal stand point, they are now screwed, because now they _must_ do it. That's not the right takeaway. They're only required to turn over data to which they have access. If they continue writing software that makes it so they don't have access to the data, then they do not need to turn it over because they can't. The fact that you can write software to store or transmit unencrypted data is irrelevant.

mrweasel 5y ago
Because Apple write the software, there will never be a time where they do not at some point have access to the data.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Right, but there is a big difference between them having the software in place already to steal files off a phone for a government, versus a government telling them "you must deploy this new software." In the past Apple has said no to writing any new spyware for the government. They would not be able to say no very easily if the software is already on the devices.
  - shuckles 5y ago
    Apple has the software to “steal files off a phone” through iCloud Backup. Whether they do this for governments is a policy matter.
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      That's on their servers, not your device. The difference is the source of people's outrage.