9 ms·

Am I the only one who finds no issue with this? Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud, which is already possible. All of the

Am I the only one who finds no issue with this? Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud, which is already possible. All of the slippery slope arguments have already been possible for nearly a decade now with the cloud. Can someone illustrate something wrong with this that’s not already possible today. Fundamentally unless you audited the client and the server yourself either (client or backend) scanning is possible, and therefore this “problem”. Where’s the issue?

robertoandred 5y ago
Never let a good Apple controversy go to waste. Clickbait blogs are thrilled to have something like this.
fuzzer37 5y ago
> Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud, which is already possible. Why is that the alternative? How about everything is encrypted and nothing is scanned.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  This is already possible if you self host your stuff. I’m talking about iCloud specifically here - backups are not encrypted so it’s either scan in the backend or scan on the client. If you don’t want to be scanned you can turn it off. I honestly don’t see the issue. It seems the only thing people can say are hypothetical situations here.
- saynay 5y ago
  Realistically, because if they don't have something to scan for it, countries / EU are going to require them to provide a backdoor to scan it. There are already proposals in the EU to that affect.
petersellers 5y ago
Personally, I'd prefer no privacy intrusions at all. The issue is that Apple previously was not intruding into their user's privacy (at least publicly), but now they are. It sounds like your argument is that Apple could have been doing this all along and just not telling us. I find that unlikely mainly because they've marketed themselves as a privacy-focused company up until now.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m your situation can’t you just turn off the scanning? What’s the issue?
  - petersellers 5y ago
    There are two different "features" being implemented - Messages scanning for minors on a family plan (which can be turned off) and iCloud Photo scanning (which can't be turned off, as far as I know). So no, you can't just turn it off.
    - CubsFan1060 5y ago
      Yes, it can be turned off. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/05/apple-csam-detection-disabled-icloud-photos/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/05/apple-csam-detection-di...
      - petersellers 5y ago
        Only if you disable iCloud photos completely. So no, you cannot turn off the feature unless you stop using iCloud photos.
        CubsFan1060 5y ago
        Correct. I'm not sure how that's a distinction from "you can't turn it off" though. I believe they've been doing this scan server-side for quite some time already.
        petersellers 5y ago
        Here's the distinction: I used to be able to use iCloud photos without having my photos scanned, and now I can't. So I have to make a choice of either dropping iCloud photos completely or submit to having all of my photos scanned. I don't think they have been doing server-side scanning until now, hence the publicity. Do you have any evidence that shows they've been doing this before?
xadhominemx 5y ago
> All of the slippery slope arguments have already been possible for nearly a decade now with the cloud. Not only has it been possible for a decade, it’s been happening for a decade. Every major social media company already scans for and reports child pornography to the feds. Facebook submits millions of reports per year.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. This is honestly nothing new.
  - mrkstu 5y ago
    This is new for Apple's customers. And its new in that the device you bought and paid for is nosing through your files. Apple is introducing a reverse 'Little Snitch' where instead of the app warning you what apps are doing on the network, the OS is scanning your photos. Introducing a 5th columnist into a device that you've bought and paid for is a huge philosophical jump from Apple's previous stances on privacy, where they'd gone as far as fighting the Feds about trying to break into terrorist's iPhones.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Luckily for their customers it can be turned off. So, what’s the issue?
      - mrkstu 5y ago
        A huge part of Apple’s value proposition is iCloud. If I have to turn that off to keep the spy out of my OS, it’s value to me is dramatically diminished.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        Since you presumably don’t trust Apple to scan your photos, it sounds like Apple might not be for you, then. Who will you move to?
creddit 5y ago
Why prefer your owned device tattling on you to Apple looking at data you give them on their servers? The reason people don't like this, as opposed to, for example, Dropbox scanning your synced files on their servers, is that a compute tool you ostensibly own is now turned completely against you. Today, that is for CSAM, tomorrow, what else?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  There’s no difference - all cloud services that aren’t encrypting your data is subject to the same thing. Dropbox could do the same thing tomorrow. If we’re talking about hypotheticals any vendor that handles your unencrypted files can do this now.
  - stevenalowe 5y ago
    big difference: you're now paying for the compute load, instead of the cloud providers, for something that offers no direct benefit to you and will most likely betray you in unforeseen ways in the future (especially in less 'free' countries)
  - creddit 5y ago
    You’re not understanding. Dropbox already does scan your files and I’m comparing Apples actions explicitly to that fact. I’m pointing out that people don’t care about that because you’re literally, voluntarily, giving Dropbox your files. Here, Apple is controlling your phone to tattle on you at an OS level (yes, I know, Apple says you need to turn on iCloud Photos for this to run but the precedent is the problem).
    - headShrinker 5y ago
      > Dropbox already does scan your files > people don’t care about that because you’re literally, voluntarily, giving Dropbox your files. Correct and I agree. I don’t upload my most personal photos to Dropbox for this very specific reason. In fact I stopped using Dropbox when Condi Rice joined the board because she lacks good sense and doesn’t respect civil rights. See ‘The Patriot Act’ and ‘the Invasion of Afghanistan’. It was easy to stop using Dropbox because the alternatives were vast. Apple has me very purposely locked in to this scheme to where the alternatives are a huge transition and compromise on privacy no matter where I turn.
LatteLazy 5y ago
>Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud How about neither? Just let people have their privacy. Some will misuse it. Thats life.
fritzw 5y ago
> All of the slippery slope arguments have already been possible for nearly a decade now with the cloud. That doesn't make it ok. The fact that you and my mom have normalized bad behavior doesn't make it any less offensive to my civil liberties. > Am I the only one who finds no issue with this? If you only think about the first order effects. This is great, we catch a bunch of kid sex pedos. The second order effects are much more dire. "slippery slope" sure... but false arrests, lives ruined based on mere investigations revealing nothing, expanding the role of government peering in to our personal lives, resulting suicides, corporations launching these programs - then defending them - then expanding them due to government pressure is *guaranteed*, additional PR and propaganda from corporations and government for further invasion in our personal lives due to the marketed/claimed success of these programs. The FBI has been putting massive pressure on Apple for years, due to the dominance and security measures of iOS. Say what you want about the death penalty, but many many innocent people have dead in a truly horrific way, with some actually being tortured while being executed. That is a perfect example of second order effects on something most of us without any further information (ending murderous villains is a good thing) would agree on. So many Death Row inmates have been exonerated and vindicated. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_i...
the8472 5y ago
> Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud, which is already possible. What is also possible: No scanning on your device and encrypted cloud storage. E.g. borg + rsync.net, mega, proton drive.
basisword 5y ago
If it's in the cloud you can choose not to use the cloud service. If it's on device - a device you'e spent over $1000 on and already own - you don't have a choice (unless you want to forgo all updates, including security patches).

robertoandred 5y ago

Never let a good Apple controversy go to waste. Clickbait blogs are thrilled to have something like this.

fuzzer37 5y ago

> Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud, which is already possible. Why is that the alternative? How about everything is encrypted and nothing is scanned.

endisneigh 5y ago
This is already possible if you self host your stuff. I’m talking about iCloud specifically here - backups are not encrypted so it’s either scan in the backend or scan on the client. If you don’t want to be scanned you can turn it off. I honestly don’t see the issue. It seems the only thing people can say are hypothetical situations here.
saynay 5y ago
Realistically, because if they don't have something to scan for it, countries / EU are going to require them to provide a backdoor to scan it. There are already proposals in the EU to that affect.

petersellers 5y ago

Personally, I'd prefer no privacy intrusions at all. The issue is that Apple previously was not intruding into their user's privacy (at least publicly), but now they are. It sounds like your argument is that Apple could have been doing this all along and just not telling us. I find that unlikely mainly because they've marketed themselves as a privacy-focused company up until now.

endisneigh 5y ago
I’m your situation can’t you just turn off the scanning? What’s the issue?
- petersellers 5y ago
  There are two different "features" being implemented - Messages scanning for minors on a family plan (which can be turned off) and iCloud Photo scanning (which can't be turned off, as far as I know). So no, you can't just turn it off.
  - CubsFan1060 5y ago
    Yes, it can be turned off. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/05/apple-csam-detection-disabled-icloud-photos/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/05/apple-csam-detection-di...
    - petersellers 5y ago
      Only if you disable iCloud photos completely. So no, you cannot turn off the feature unless you stop using iCloud photos.
      - CubsFan1060 5y ago
        Correct. I'm not sure how that's a distinction from "you can't turn it off" though. I believe they've been doing this scan server-side for quite some time already.
        petersellers 5y ago
        Here's the distinction: I used to be able to use iCloud photos without having my photos scanned, and now I can't. So I have to make a choice of either dropping iCloud photos completely or submit to having all of my photos scanned. I don't think they have been doing server-side scanning until now, hence the publicity. Do you have any evidence that shows they've been doing this before?

xadhominemx 5y ago

> All of the slippery slope arguments have already been possible for nearly a decade now with the cloud. Not only has it been possible for a decade, it’s been happening for a decade. Every major social media company already scans for and reports child pornography to the feds. Facebook submits millions of reports per year.

endisneigh 5y ago
Yes, exactly. This is honestly nothing new.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  This is new for Apple's customers. And its new in that the device you bought and paid for is nosing through your files. Apple is introducing a reverse 'Little Snitch' where instead of the app warning you what apps are doing on the network, the OS is scanning your photos. Introducing a 5th columnist into a device that you've bought and paid for is a huge philosophical jump from Apple's previous stances on privacy, where they'd gone as far as fighting the Feds about trying to break into terrorist's iPhones.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Luckily for their customers it can be turned off. So, what’s the issue?
    - mrkstu 5y ago
      A huge part of Apple’s value proposition is iCloud. If I have to turn that off to keep the spy out of my OS, it’s value to me is dramatically diminished.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Since you presumably don’t trust Apple to scan your photos, it sounds like Apple might not be for you, then. Who will you move to?

creddit 5y ago

Why prefer your owned device tattling on you to Apple looking at data you give them on their servers? The reason people don't like this, as opposed to, for example, Dropbox scanning your synced files on their servers, is that a compute tool you ostensibly own is now turned completely against you. Today, that is for CSAM, tomorrow, what else?

endisneigh 5y ago
There’s no difference - all cloud services that aren’t encrypting your data is subject to the same thing. Dropbox could do the same thing tomorrow. If we’re talking about hypotheticals any vendor that handles your unencrypted files can do this now.
- stevenalowe 5y ago
  big difference: you're now paying for the compute load, instead of the cloud providers, for something that offers no direct benefit to you and will most likely betray you in unforeseen ways in the future (especially in less 'free' countries)
- creddit 5y ago
  You’re not understanding. Dropbox already does scan your files and I’m comparing Apples actions explicitly to that fact. I’m pointing out that people don’t care about that because you’re literally, voluntarily, giving Dropbox your files. Here, Apple is controlling your phone to tattle on you at an OS level (yes, I know, Apple says you need to turn on iCloud Photos for this to run but the precedent is the problem).
  - headShrinker 5y ago
    > Dropbox already does scan your files > people don’t care about that because you’re literally, voluntarily, giving Dropbox your files. Correct and I agree. I don’t upload my most personal photos to Dropbox for this very specific reason. In fact I stopped using Dropbox when Condi Rice joined the board because she lacks good sense and doesn’t respect civil rights. See ‘The Patriot Act’ and ‘the Invasion of Afghanistan’. It was easy to stop using Dropbox because the alternatives were vast. Apple has me very purposely locked in to this scheme to where the alternatives are a huge transition and compromise on privacy no matter where I turn.

LatteLazy 5y ago

>Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud How about neither? Just let people have their privacy. Some will misuse it. Thats life.

fritzw 5y ago

> All of the slippery slope arguments have already been possible for nearly a decade now with the cloud. That doesn't make it ok. The fact that you and my mom have normalized bad behavior doesn't make it any less offensive to my civil liberties. > Am I the only one who finds no issue with this? If you only think about the first order effects. This is great, we catch a bunch of kid sex pedos. The second order effects are much more dire. "slippery slope" sure... but false arrests, lives ruined based on mere investigations revealing nothing, expanding the role of government peering in to our personal lives, resulting suicides, corporations launching these programs - then defending them - then expanding them due to government pressure is *guaranteed*, additional PR and propaganda from corporations and government for further invasion in our personal lives due to the marketed/claimed success of these programs. The FBI has been putting massive pressure on Apple for years, due to the dominance and security measures of iOS. Say what you want about the death penalty, but many many innocent people have dead in a truly horrific way, with some actually being tortured while being executed. That is a perfect example of second order effects on something most of us without any further information (ending murderous villains is a good thing) would agree on. So many Death Row inmates have been exonerated and vindicated. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_i...

the8472 5y ago

> Personally I’d prefer this than no encryption and scanning in the cloud, which is already possible. What is also possible: No scanning on your device and encrypted cloud storage. E.g. borg + rsync.net, mega, proton drive.

basisword 5y ago

If it's in the cloud you can choose not to use the cloud service. If it's on device - a device you'e spent over $1000 on and already own - you don't have a choice (unless you want to forgo all updates, including security patches).