4 ms·

Here's the reason for the sudden uproar: The scanning of things on third party servers was just barely tolerated by a lot of people, whether it's for advertisin

Here's the reason for the sudden uproar: The scanning of things on third party servers was just barely tolerated by a lot of people, whether it's for advertising purposes or government intrusion. People accept it because it's considered reasonable for these third parties to scan data in exchange for providing a service for free (e.g. Google), or because they need to have some degree of accountability for what is on their servers. When that scanning gets moved from the cloud to being on your device, a boundary is violated. When that boundary is violated by a company who makes extreme privacy claims like saying that privacy is a "fundamental human right"[1], yes, people will "lose their minds" over it. This shouldn't be shocking at all. [1] https://apple.com/privacy https://apple.com/privacy

GeekyBear 5y ago
When the scanning gets moved from the cloud to being on device, Apple itself cannot see the results of the scan until the risk that the result is only a false positive is greatly reduced. You would have to have 30 false positives before Apple can see anything, which is unlikely, but the next step is still a human review, since it's not impossible.
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  I don't care. It's my device (at least that's how Apple used to advertise it) and I disagree with Apple's policy, full stop. I don't care about "think of the children" (especially since they will be scanning pictures of my own children), and furthermore I don't trust Apple not to change the policy in the future. They've created a backdoor and now the device is compromised and privacy is broken. If you want to trust Apple go ahead. They have eroded my trust and I doubt they could regain it within a decade.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    >I don't care If anything, you should be outraged that Google and Microsoft have been scanning much more of your data, and doing so in a much more intrusive way. Apple only scans iCloud Photos and they do so in a way that they can't see the results until they can be reasonably sure it's not just a false positive.
    - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
      You have clearly misunderstood my position as you have replied to 2 of my comments already. You seem to have an "Apple vs the world" mentality when my point is entirely about holding Apple accountable to their own marketing. You sound like a bizarre Apple apologist and I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you when all you want to do is explain to me why Apple is better than everybody when I do not care and also fundamentally disagree. If you think Apple's approach is the best you're allowed to think that. I disagree.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- brandon272 5y ago
  Whether or not Apple can see the results is completely irrelevant, to me at least. Automated surveillance is still surveillance.

GeekyBear 5y ago

When the scanning gets moved from the cloud to being on device, Apple itself cannot see the results of the scan until the risk that the result is only a false positive is greatly reduced. You would have to have 30 false positives before Apple can see anything, which is unlikely, but the next step is still a human review, since it's not impossible.

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
I don't care. It's my device (at least that's how Apple used to advertise it) and I disagree with Apple's policy, full stop. I don't care about "think of the children" (especially since they will be scanning pictures of my own children), and furthermore I don't trust Apple not to change the policy in the future. They've created a backdoor and now the device is compromised and privacy is broken. If you want to trust Apple go ahead. They have eroded my trust and I doubt they could regain it within a decade.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  >I don't care If anything, you should be outraged that Google and Microsoft have been scanning much more of your data, and doing so in a much more intrusive way. Apple only scans iCloud Photos and they do so in a way that they can't see the results until they can be reasonably sure it's not just a false positive.
  - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
    You have clearly misunderstood my position as you have replied to 2 of my comments already. You seem to have an "Apple vs the world" mentality when my point is entirely about holding Apple accountable to their own marketing. You sound like a bizarre Apple apologist and I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you when all you want to do is explain to me why Apple is better than everybody when I do not care and also fundamentally disagree. If you think Apple's approach is the best you're allowed to think that. I disagree.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
brandon272 5y ago
Whether or not Apple can see the results is completely irrelevant, to me at least. Automated surveillance is still surveillance.