12 ms·

I think the "confusion" was 100% intentional. That the two features (iMessage scanning & on-device spying pre-upload to iCloud) were intentionally released at t

I think the "confusion" was 100% intentional. That the two features (iMessage scanning & on-device spying pre-upload to iCloud) were intentionally released at the same time to make the whole thing harder to criticize in a soundbite. Confusion is the best-case scenario for Apple because people will tune it out. If they had released just the on-device spying, public outcry and backlash would have been laser targeted on a single issue.

jchw 5y ago
Fanatics also have a tendency to try to latch onto whatever details may offer a respite from the narrative. The core problem here is that Apple is effectively putting code designed to inform the government of criminal activity on the device. It’s a bad precedent. Apple gave its legendary fan base a fair few facts to latch onto; the first being that it’s a measure against child abuse, which can be used to equate detractors to pedophile apologists or simply pedophiles (these days, more likely directly to the latter.) Thankfully this seems cliché enough to have not been a dominant take. Then there’s the fact that right now, it only runs in certain situations where the data would currently be unencrypted anyways. This is extremely interesting because if they start using E2EE for these things in the future, it will basically be uncharted territory, but what they’re doing now is only merely lining up the capability to do that and not actually doing that. Not to mention, these features have a tendency to expand in scope in the longer term. I wouldn’t call it a slippery slope, it’s more like an overton window of how much people are OK with a surveillance state. I’d say Americans on the whole are actually pretty strongly averse to this, despite everything, and it seems like this was too creepy for many people. Then there’s definitely the confusion; because of course, Apple isn’t doing anything wrong; everyone is just confusing what these features do and their long-term implications. Here’s where I think it backfired: because it runs on the device, psychologically it feels like the phone is not trustworthy of you. And because of that, using anti-CSAM measures as a starting point was a Terrible misfire, because to users, it just feels like your phone is constantly assuming you could be a pedophile and need to be monitored. It feels much more impersonal when a cloud service does it off into the distance for all content. In practice, the current short-term outcome doesn’t matter so much as the precedent of what can be done with features like this. And it feels like pure hypocrisy coming from a company whose CEO once claimed they couldn’t build surveillance features into their phones because of pressures for it to be abused. It was only around 5 years ago. Did something change? I feel like to Apple it is really important that their employees and fans believe they are actually a principled company who makes tough decisions with disregard for “haters” and luddites. In reality, though, I think it’s only fair to recognize that this is just too idealistic. Between this, the situation with iCloud in China, and the juxtaposition of their fight with the U.S. government, one can only conclude that Apple is, after all, just another company, though one whose direction and public relations resonated with a lot of consumers. A PR misfire from Apple of this size is rare, but I think what it means for Apple is big, as it shatters even some of the company’s most faithful. For Google, this kind of misfire would’ve just been another Tuesday. And I gotta say, between this and Safari, I’m definitely not planning on my next phone being from Cupertino.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  > I’d say Americans on the whole are actually pretty strongly averse to this, despite everything, and it seems like this was too creepy for mant people. You mean that country which gives a damn about privacy altogether because all those fancy corps are giving them toys to play? You know, those companies which feed on the worlds populations data as a business model. The country which has a camera on their front door which films their neighbourhood 24/7? The country which has listening devices all over their homes in useless gadgets? You have to be joking or that scale you impose here is useless. This whole thing will go by fast and there won't be much damage on the sales side. Apple is the luxus brand. People don't buy it for privacy. Most of the customers won't probably even understand the problem here. The only thing we might be rid of are those songs of glory in technical spheres.
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    I bought my first iPhone this year, and privacy was the reason.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      Congratulations. How did that work out for you?
      - abecedarius 5y ago
        Can't say I'm pleased right now. Apple can still change course.
  - Bud 5y ago
    Could we not pretend, please, that the US is the only country with a lot of pervasive surveillance. Because that's clearly laughable.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      Could we not build straw man, please. I never did that. Americans were the topic here. See quote.
jimbob45 5y ago
Do you have a source on the iMessage thing? I don’t remember seeing anything about iMessage but maybe I failed to adequately read the press release.
- kemayo 5y ago
  It's a feature that only applies to kids under 18 who're in a family group, whose parents turn it on. It warns the kid before letting them see an image which machine-learning thinks is nudity. If the kid is 12 or under, their parents can be notified if they choose to see it. It apparently does no reporting to anyone apart from that parental notification. Check the section "WHAT IS APPLE DOING WITH MESSAGES?" in this article: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22613225/apple-csam-scanning-messages-child-safety-features-privacy-controversy-explained https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22613225/apple-csam-scann...
  - 0xy 5y ago
    I shudder to think of the thousands of gay children this will out to their unaccepting parents, some resulting in physical, verbal or emotional abuse -- or worse. This feature is a catastrophe.
    - thrownaway810 5y ago
      The thousands of gay children under the age of 13, whose parents have opted into this program, who are sending or receiving pornographic images via iMessage and have chosen when prompted to notify their parents of that? I can’t imagine that’s a big issue…
arvinsim 5y ago
With enough eyeballs, all disinformation/bugs are shallow.

jchw 5y ago

Fanatics also have a tendency to try to latch onto whatever details may offer a respite from the narrative. The core problem here is that Apple is effectively putting code designed to inform the government of criminal activity on the device. It’s a bad precedent. Apple gave its legendary fan base a fair few facts to latch onto; the first being that it’s a measure against child abuse, which can be used to equate detractors to pedophile apologists or simply pedophiles (these days, more likely directly to the latter.) Thankfully this seems cliché enough to have not been a dominant take. Then there’s the fact that right now, it only runs in certain situations where the data would currently be unencrypted anyways. This is extremely interesting because if they start using E2EE for these things in the future, it will basically be uncharted territory, but what they’re doing now is only merely lining up the capability to do that and not actually doing that. Not to mention, these features have a tendency to expand in scope in the longer term. I wouldn’t call it a slippery slope, it’s more like an overton window of how much people are OK with a surveillance state. I’d say Americans on the whole are actually pretty strongly averse to this, despite everything, and it seems like this was too creepy for many people. Then there’s definitely the confusion; because of course, Apple isn’t doing anything wrong; everyone is just confusing what these features do and their long-term implications. Here’s where I think it backfired: because it runs on the device, psychologically it feels like the phone is not trustworthy of you. And because of that, using anti-CSAM measures as a starting point was a Terrible misfire, because to users, it just feels like your phone is constantly assuming you could be a pedophile and need to be monitored. It feels much more impersonal when a cloud service does it off into the distance for all content. In practice, the current short-term outcome doesn’t matter so much as the precedent of what can be done with features like this. And it feels like pure hypocrisy coming from a company whose CEO once claimed they couldn’t build surveillance features into their phones because of pressures for it to be abused. It was only around 5 years ago. Did something change? I feel like to Apple it is really important that their employees and fans believe they are actually a principled company who makes tough decisions with disregard for “haters” and luddites. In reality, though, I think it’s only fair to recognize that this is just too idealistic. Between this, the situation with iCloud in China, and the juxtaposition of their fight with the U.S. government, one can only conclude that Apple is, after all, just another company, though one whose direction and public relations resonated with a lot of consumers. A PR misfire from Apple of this size is rare, but I think what it means for Apple is big, as it shatters even some of the company’s most faithful. For Google, this kind of misfire would’ve just been another Tuesday. And I gotta say, between this and Safari, I’m definitely not planning on my next phone being from Cupertino.

Krasnol 5y ago
> I’d say Americans on the whole are actually pretty strongly averse to this, despite everything, and it seems like this was too creepy for mant people. You mean that country which gives a damn about privacy altogether because all those fancy corps are giving them toys to play? You know, those companies which feed on the worlds populations data as a business model. The country which has a camera on their front door which films their neighbourhood 24/7? The country which has listening devices all over their homes in useless gadgets? You have to be joking or that scale you impose here is useless. This whole thing will go by fast and there won't be much damage on the sales side. Apple is the luxus brand. People don't buy it for privacy. Most of the customers won't probably even understand the problem here. The only thing we might be rid of are those songs of glory in technical spheres.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  I bought my first iPhone this year, and privacy was the reason.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    Congratulations. How did that work out for you?
    - abecedarius 5y ago
      Can't say I'm pleased right now. Apple can still change course.
- Bud 5y ago
  Could we not pretend, please, that the US is the only country with a lot of pervasive surveillance. Because that's clearly laughable.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    Could we not build straw man, please. I never did that. Americans were the topic here. See quote.

jimbob45 5y ago

Do you have a source on the iMessage thing? I don’t remember seeing anything about iMessage but maybe I failed to adequately read the press release.

kemayo 5y ago
It's a feature that only applies to kids under 18 who're in a family group, whose parents turn it on. It warns the kid before letting them see an image which machine-learning thinks is nudity. If the kid is 12 or under, their parents can be notified if they choose to see it. It apparently does no reporting to anyone apart from that parental notification. Check the section "WHAT IS APPLE DOING WITH MESSAGES?" in this article: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22613225/apple-csam-scanning-messages-child-safety-features-privacy-controversy-explained https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22613225/apple-csam-scann...
- 0xy 5y ago
  I shudder to think of the thousands of gay children this will out to their unaccepting parents, some resulting in physical, verbal or emotional abuse -- or worse. This feature is a catastrophe.
  - thrownaway810 5y ago
    The thousands of gay children under the age of 13, whose parents have opted into this program, who are sending or receiving pornographic images via iMessage and have chosen when prompted to notify their parents of that? I can’t imagine that’s a big issue…

arvinsim 5y ago

With enough eyeballs, all disinformation/bugs are shallow.