4 ms·

It's a very ill-considered argument, because Apple obviously already has the capability of pushing literally any conceivable software update to iPhones. Apple (

It's a very ill-considered argument, because Apple obviously already has the capability of pushing literally any conceivable software update to iPhones. Apple (and thus iPhones) already have the capability to do anything you can conceive of, regardless of how terrible. For instance, iPhones have the capability of activating the cameras at all times, detecting when they capture compromising or embarrassing video, and uploading those videos to a public website along with your name and contact information. The only thing preventing Apple from doing that is their own policies. If you think it's bad that Apple can push software updates to iPhones, then by all means make that argument. But "the only way to prevent bad changes to this system down the road is for this first version of the system to never exist" is a very poor argument, given that the only "system" that needs to exist is the ability to push software updates, and that system existed long ago.

babesh 5y ago
That isn't the argument at all. What Apple can't have happen without major reputational damage is get caught doing it without telling its customers. Thus this is seen as a marketing backdoor to the actual backdoor. This is seen as a ploy that later gives Apple the plausible deniability argument that the government is making them do it (other forms of content) even though they created the means (on device scanning) for the government to exploit. Why limit it to content that will be uploaded to iCloud? Why limit iMessage scanning to kids? Why not also let the government know? Why limit it to child porn since the system works for any image? Why limit it to 30 hits?
- babesh 5y ago
  Imagine the reputational damage to Apple if say in 2 years it was discovered that they had been scanning all photos on your device and that the matches had been going to the government and that they didn't tell you. Their privacy marketing angle would be completely toast. Imagine if they did this to phones outside the US. Any sane marketing person would try to find a way to sugarcoat it first.
pseudalopex 5y ago
> But "the only way to prevent bad changes to this system down the road is for this first version of the system to never exist" is a very poor argument, given that the only "system" that needs to exist is the ability to push software updates, and that system existed long ago. Apple relied on that argument 5 years ago successfully.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute

babesh 5y ago

That isn't the argument at all. What Apple can't have happen without major reputational damage is get caught doing it without telling its customers. Thus this is seen as a marketing backdoor to the actual backdoor. This is seen as a ploy that later gives Apple the plausible deniability argument that the government is making them do it (other forms of content) even though they created the means (on device scanning) for the government to exploit. Why limit it to content that will be uploaded to iCloud? Why limit iMessage scanning to kids? Why not also let the government know? Why limit it to child porn since the system works for any image? Why limit it to 30 hits?

babesh 5y ago
Imagine the reputational damage to Apple if say in 2 years it was discovered that they had been scanning all photos on your device and that the matches had been going to the government and that they didn't tell you. Their privacy marketing angle would be completely toast. Imagine if they did this to phones outside the US. Any sane marketing person would try to find a way to sugarcoat it first.

pseudalopex 5y ago

> But "the only way to prevent bad changes to this system down the road is for this first version of the system to never exist" is a very poor argument, given that the only "system" that needs to exist is the ability to push software updates, and that system existed long ago. Apple relied on that argument 5 years ago successfully.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute