4 ms·

I don’t like the idea of stuff running on my device, consuming my battery and data, when the only point is to see if I am doing something wrong? An analogy I c

I don’t like the idea of stuff running on my device, consuming my battery and data, when the only point is to see if I am doing something wrong? An analogy I can come up with is: the government hires people to visit your house every day, and while they’re there they need your resources (say, food, water, and electricity). In other words, they use up some of the stuff you would otherwise be able to use only for yourself — constantly — and the only reason they’re there is to see if you’re doing anything wrong. Why would you put up with this?

shuckles 5y ago
The point of it is to make sure iCloud Photos remains a viable service in light of real and perceived regulatory threats, and possibly leave the door open to end to end encryption in the future.
- gpm 5y ago
  There is no regulatory threat within the US that could require this happen, if this was demanded by the government it would be a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. Apple should have stood their ground if this was in response to perceived government pressure.
  - dwaite 5y ago
    IMHO, the relevant regulations are pretty carefully worded to make 4th amendment defenses harder. In this case, Apple has some liability for criminal activity on their platform whether it is was E2E encrypted or not.
  - matwood 5y ago
    There are two gov. issues. One is if the FBI comes knocking and the other is new laws. The government could absolutely write a law banning e2ee so that when the FBI does knock with a warrant they can get access. In the past, Apple has done what they can to stand their ground against the first, but they (like any other company) will have to comply with any laws passed. Whether the 'if a warrant is obtained the gov. should be granted access' law is a violation of the 4th amendment remains to be seen.
    - gpm 5y ago
      When the FBI does knock with a warrant they already get access to data on iCloud. iCloud is not meaningfully encrypted to prevent this. The FBI is unable to get a warrant to search data on everyones phones, regardless of what laws are passed. They might be able to get a warrant to search all the data on apple's server (I would consider this unlikely, but I don't know of precedent in either direction), but that data is fundamentally not on everyones phones. This isn't a novel legal question, you cannot search everyones devices without probable cause that "everyone" committed a crime.
- jjcon 5y ago
  So they open a huge back door instead of waiting for a threat and fighting that?
- least 5y ago
  This is a false dichotomy that is being pushed constantly online. E2EE is possible without this tech and in fact is only useful without tech like this to act as a MITM.
literallyaduck 5y ago
So 3rd amendment defense? These are digital soldiers being quartered in our digital house.
- dwaite 5y ago
  Probably a clarification of the 4th in order; there are multiple levels of government and private institutions at play to disguise that the government is pressuring private institutions to do search and seizure on their behalf.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tzs 5y ago
A better fitting analogy would be you ask FedEx to pick up a package at your house for delivery, and they have a new rule that they won't pick up packages unless they can look inside to make sure that they are packed correctly and do not contain anything that FedEx does not allow. When they open and look into the package while in your house for the pickup, they are using your light to see and your heating/cooling is keeping the driver comfortable while they inspect the package.
- weiliddat 5y ago
  I'd say the analogy is closer to, they'll x-ray your package to make sure there aren't any prohibited/dangerous items.
nearbuy 5y ago
A lot of things work this way. The government is quite literally taxing some of your income and using it to check if you're doing anything wrong. When a cop is checking your car for parking violations, they're using some of your taxpayer dollars to see if you're doing something wrong. You don't benefit at all from your car getting checked. But you probably benefit from everyone else's cars being checked, which is why we have this system. Or similarly, you don't benefit from airport security searching your luggage. It's a waste of your time and invasion of your privacy if you don't have anything forbidden and even worse for you if you do have something forbidden. But you help pay for airport security anyway because it might benefit you when they search other people's luggage. You don't benefit at all from having your photos scanned. But you (or someone else) might benefit from everyone else's photos being scanned (if it helps catch child abusers or rescue abused children). It's just a question of whether you think the benefit is worth the cost.

shuckles 5y ago

The point of it is to make sure iCloud Photos remains a viable service in light of real and perceived regulatory threats, and possibly leave the door open to end to end encryption in the future.

gpm 5y ago
There is no regulatory threat within the US that could require this happen, if this was demanded by the government it would be a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. Apple should have stood their ground if this was in response to perceived government pressure.
- dwaite 5y ago
  IMHO, the relevant regulations are pretty carefully worded to make 4th amendment defenses harder. In this case, Apple has some liability for criminal activity on their platform whether it is was E2E encrypted or not.
- matwood 5y ago
  There are two gov. issues. One is if the FBI comes knocking and the other is new laws. The government could absolutely write a law banning e2ee so that when the FBI does knock with a warrant they can get access. In the past, Apple has done what they can to stand their ground against the first, but they (like any other company) will have to comply with any laws passed. Whether the 'if a warrant is obtained the gov. should be granted access' law is a violation of the 4th amendment remains to be seen.
  - gpm 5y ago
    When the FBI does knock with a warrant they already get access to data on iCloud. iCloud is not meaningfully encrypted to prevent this. The FBI is unable to get a warrant to search data on everyones phones, regardless of what laws are passed. They might be able to get a warrant to search all the data on apple's server (I would consider this unlikely, but I don't know of precedent in either direction), but that data is fundamentally not on everyones phones. This isn't a novel legal question, you cannot search everyones devices without probable cause that "everyone" committed a crime.
jjcon 5y ago
So they open a huge back door instead of waiting for a threat and fighting that?
least 5y ago
This is a false dichotomy that is being pushed constantly online. E2EE is possible without this tech and in fact is only useful without tech like this to act as a MITM.

literallyaduck 5y ago

So 3rd amendment defense? These are digital soldiers being quartered in our digital house.

dwaite 5y ago
Probably a clarification of the 4th in order; there are multiple levels of government and private institutions at play to disguise that the government is pressuring private institutions to do search and seizure on their behalf.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tzs 5y ago

A better fitting analogy would be you ask FedEx to pick up a package at your house for delivery, and they have a new rule that they won't pick up packages unless they can look inside to make sure that they are packed correctly and do not contain anything that FedEx does not allow. When they open and look into the package while in your house for the pickup, they are using your light to see and your heating/cooling is keeping the driver comfortable while they inspect the package.

weiliddat 5y ago
I'd say the analogy is closer to, they'll x-ray your package to make sure there aren't any prohibited/dangerous items.

nearbuy 5y ago

A lot of things work this way. The government is quite literally taxing some of your income and using it to check if you're doing anything wrong. When a cop is checking your car for parking violations, they're using some of your taxpayer dollars to see if you're doing something wrong. You don't benefit at all from your car getting checked. But you probably benefit from everyone else's cars being checked, which is why we have this system. Or similarly, you don't benefit from airport security searching your luggage. It's a waste of your time and invasion of your privacy if you don't have anything forbidden and even worse for you if you do have something forbidden. But you help pay for airport security anyway because it might benefit you when they search other people's luggage. You don't benefit at all from having your photos scanned. But you (or someone else) might benefit from everyone else's photos being scanned (if it helps catch child abusers or rescue abused children). It's just a question of whether you think the benefit is worth the cost.