4 ms·

The difference is the ease with which they can demur. Before, it would be a whole heck of a lot of new, additional work. They also have the problem of actually

The difference is the ease with which they can demur. Before, it would be a whole heck of a lot of new, additional work. They also have the problem of actually introducing it without being noticed, or having to come up with some cover for the new behavior. Now? Well now it's real simple. It will even conveniently not expose the actual images it's checking for. Apple now has significantly less ability to rationally reject the request based on the effort and difficulty of the matter. Even Apple's own reasons to reject the request have decreased. It would have legitimately cost them more to fulfill this request before, even if China did want to play hardball. Now, they have greater incentive to go along with it.

mrtranscendence 5y ago
> The difference is the ease with which they can demur. If Apple can be cowed by China into adding fake CSAM hashes by threat of banning iPhone sales, they could be cowed to surveil Chinese citizens in the search for subversive material. It's no skin off China's back if it's harder for Apple -- they'll either make the demand or they won't. This changes basically nothing.
- foerbert 5y ago
  I think that's a too simplistic view. It's kinda true, but ignores how humans really work. Apple will be pushed around to a degree, but there will be limits. The harder the ask now the less China can ask later. And the more Apple can protest about the difficulty and impossibility and other consequences they will face, the more likely China is to back off. Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too, and will compromise to make it basically work. But if China makes demands so excessive they get Apple to cut ties, China loses. Apple has the money, demand, customer loyalty, and clout to make things real uncomfortable. Apple would have to pay a hefty price, but if any company can do it... it's them. So I don't think it's fair to say that no matter what China will just demand whatever whims strike it each day and everybody will play ball or gtfo. That just isn't how shit works.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Apple does have some degree of leverage over the CCP too. I realize its not possible today... but in 3-5 years, Apple may be in a position to move some/all of their manufacturing elsewhere. The direct job losses are one obvious problem for the CCP but a company like Apple saying "We're moving production to Taiwan/Vietnam/US because of security risks in China" would be catastrophic for the (tech) manufacturing industry as a whole in China. No sane Western based CEO will want to be seen taking that security gamble. Do I think Apple would do that and forgo the massive Chinese smartphone market? That's another story.
slg 5y ago
As far as I'm aware, this system is not new. It is only moving from the cloud to the local device. If the cloud was already compromised, which it seems like it would be in your logic since all the same reasoning applies, I don't understand the complaints about it moving locally. In my mind there are two possible ways to view this. We could trust Apple last month and we can trust them today. We couldn't trust Apple last month and we can't trust them today. I don't understand the mindset that we could trust Apple last month and we can't trust them today.
- colpabar 5y ago
  >It is only moving from the cloud to the local device. But isn't that exactly why this is such a big deal? It sets a precedent that it's ok that devices are scanning your local device for digital contraband. Sure, right now it's only for photos that are going to be uploaded to iCloud anyway. But how long before it scans everything, and there's no way to opt out? I don't see this as so much a question of apple's trustworthiness, I see it as a major milestone in the losing battle for digital privacy. I don't think it will be long before these systems go from "protecting children from abuse" total government surveillance, and it's particularly egregious that it's being done by apple, given their previous "commitment to privacy".
  - slg 5y ago
    >But how long before it scans everything, and there's no way to opt out? Do we think this is detectable? If yes, then why worry about it if we will know when this switch is made? If not, why did we trust Apple that this wasn't happening already? That is the primary thing I don't understand, this fear rests on an assumption that Apple is a combination of both honest and corrupted. If they are honest, we have no reason to distrust what they are saying about how this system functions or will function in the future. If they were corrupted, why tell us about this at all?
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      You're viewing trust in apple as a binary choice. It is not. Trust is a spectrum like most things. You need to get away from that digital thinking. It's the whole reason we have to challenge government and be suspicious of it. It's the same with companies.

mrtranscendence 5y ago

> The difference is the ease with which they can demur. If Apple can be cowed by China into adding fake CSAM hashes by threat of banning iPhone sales, they could be cowed to surveil Chinese citizens in the search for subversive material. It's no skin off China's back if it's harder for Apple -- they'll either make the demand or they won't. This changes basically nothing.

foerbert 5y ago
I think that's a too simplistic view. It's kinda true, but ignores how humans really work. Apple will be pushed around to a degree, but there will be limits. The harder the ask now the less China can ask later. And the more Apple can protest about the difficulty and impossibility and other consequences they will face, the more likely China is to back off. Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too, and will compromise to make it basically work. But if China makes demands so excessive they get Apple to cut ties, China loses. Apple has the money, demand, customer loyalty, and clout to make things real uncomfortable. Apple would have to pay a hefty price, but if any company can do it... it's them. So I don't think it's fair to say that no matter what China will just demand whatever whims strike it each day and everybody will play ball or gtfo. That just isn't how shit works.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Apple does have some degree of leverage over the CCP too. I realize its not possible today... but in 3-5 years, Apple may be in a position to move some/all of their manufacturing elsewhere. The direct job losses are one obvious problem for the CCP but a company like Apple saying "We're moving production to Taiwan/Vietnam/US because of security risks in China" would be catastrophic for the (tech) manufacturing industry as a whole in China. No sane Western based CEO will want to be seen taking that security gamble. Do I think Apple would do that and forgo the massive Chinese smartphone market? That's another story.

slg 5y ago

As far as I'm aware, this system is not new. It is only moving from the cloud to the local device. If the cloud was already compromised, which it seems like it would be in your logic since all the same reasoning applies, I don't understand the complaints about it moving locally. In my mind there are two possible ways to view this. We could trust Apple last month and we can trust them today. We couldn't trust Apple last month and we can't trust them today. I don't understand the mindset that we could trust Apple last month and we can't trust them today.

colpabar 5y ago
>It is only moving from the cloud to the local device. But isn't that exactly why this is such a big deal? It sets a precedent that it's ok that devices are scanning your local device for digital contraband. Sure, right now it's only for photos that are going to be uploaded to iCloud anyway. But how long before it scans everything, and there's no way to opt out? I don't see this as so much a question of apple's trustworthiness, I see it as a major milestone in the losing battle for digital privacy. I don't think it will be long before these systems go from "protecting children from abuse" total government surveillance, and it's particularly egregious that it's being done by apple, given their previous "commitment to privacy".
- slg 5y ago
  >But how long before it scans everything, and there's no way to opt out? Do we think this is detectable? If yes, then why worry about it if we will know when this switch is made? If not, why did we trust Apple that this wasn't happening already? That is the primary thing I don't understand, this fear rests on an assumption that Apple is a combination of both honest and corrupted. If they are honest, we have no reason to distrust what they are saying about how this system functions or will function in the future. If they were corrupted, why tell us about this at all?
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    You're viewing trust in apple as a binary choice. It is not. Trust is a spectrum like most things. You need to get away from that digital thinking. It's the whole reason we have to challenge government and be suspicious of it. It's the same with companies.