3 ms·

>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 sc

>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.
  - slg 5y ago
    I view trust more as a collection of binary choices than one single spectrum. Do I trust Apple to do X? There is only two possible answers to that (or I guess three if we include "I don't know"). If the answer isn't binary, then X is too big. In this instance the specific question is "Do I trust Apple to be honest about when they scan our files?". I don't know why this news would change the answer to that question.
- sigmar 5y ago
  Are we going to need to reverse engineer every single Apple update to make sure the feature hasn't creeped into non-iCloud uses? Is the inevitable Samsung version of this system going to be as privacy-preserving? How are we sure the hash list isn't tainted? All of these problems are solved by one principle: Don't put the backdoor code in the OS to begin with.
  - slg 5y ago
    >Are we going to need to reverse engineer every single Apple update to make sure the feature hasn't creeped into non-iCloud uses? Did we do this already? If not, why did we assume this didn't exist previously? >Is the inevitable Samsung version of this system going to be as privacy-preserving? I don't see how this is Apple's fault. Be angry at Samsung for their system. I don't blame Snap if I have a problem with Instagram Stories. >How are we sure the hash list isn't tainted? How did we know the hash list wasn't tainted when doing this comparison on Apple's servers? >All of these problems are solved by one principle: Don't put the backdoor code in the OS to begin with. Apple controls the hardware, software, and cloud services. The backdoor didn't need to exist in the OS for there to be a backdoor.
  - sharken 5y ago
    At this point it will be the OS without on-device scanning that wins for me. It's amazing that Apple is still thinking about moving this idea forward, but they must think they are untouchable and can do what they want. And it adds insult to injury that two very different images can generate the same NeuralHash value.
- colpabar 5y ago
  It feels like you're viewing this as a purely hypothetical question and ignoring reality. No company is 100% good or bad, and it doesn't make any sense to force all possible interpretations into good/bad. >If not, why did we trust Apple that this wasn't happening already? I do not trust Apple. I don't really trust any major tech company, because they put profit first, and everything else comes second. I believe that a company as large as apple is already colluding with government(s) to surveil people, because if a money-making organization is offered a government contract that involves handing over already collected data, and it was kept secret by everyone involved, why would they refuse? I know that's very cynical, but I can't see it any other way. But that's beside the point, which is that what apple is doing is paving the way for normalization of mass government surveillance on devices that we're supposed to own. >If they were corrupted, why tell us about this at all? So that we can all get used to it, and not make a big fuss when google announces android will do the same thing. It's much easier to do things without needing to keep them a secret. This is in no way only about apple, they're just breaking the ice so to speak.
  - slg 5y ago
    >I do not trust Apple. I don't really trust any major tech company, because they put profit first, and everything else comes second. Then you should have never been using a closed system like Apple in which they had control over every aspect of it. That is my fundamental point. I'm not saying you should trust Apple. I am saying this shouldn't have changed your opinion on Apple. >So that we can all get used to it, and not make a big fuss when google announces android will do the same thing. It's much easier to do things without needing to keep them a secret. This is in no way only about apple, they're just breaking the ice so to speak. I just need more evidence before I believe a global conspiracy that requires the coordination between both adversarial governments and direct business competitors.

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.
- slg 5y ago
  I view trust more as a collection of binary choices than one single spectrum. Do I trust Apple to do X? There is only two possible answers to that (or I guess three if we include "I don't know"). If the answer isn't binary, then X is too big. In this instance the specific question is "Do I trust Apple to be honest about when they scan our files?". I don't know why this news would change the answer to that question.
sigmar 5y ago
Are we going to need to reverse engineer every single Apple update to make sure the feature hasn't creeped into non-iCloud uses? Is the inevitable Samsung version of this system going to be as privacy-preserving? How are we sure the hash list isn't tainted? All of these problems are solved by one principle: Don't put the backdoor code in the OS to begin with.
- slg 5y ago
  >Are we going to need to reverse engineer every single Apple update to make sure the feature hasn't creeped into non-iCloud uses? Did we do this already? If not, why did we assume this didn't exist previously? >Is the inevitable Samsung version of this system going to be as privacy-preserving? I don't see how this is Apple's fault. Be angry at Samsung for their system. I don't blame Snap if I have a problem with Instagram Stories. >How are we sure the hash list isn't tainted? How did we know the hash list wasn't tainted when doing this comparison on Apple's servers? >All of these problems are solved by one principle: Don't put the backdoor code in the OS to begin with. Apple controls the hardware, software, and cloud services. The backdoor didn't need to exist in the OS for there to be a backdoor.
- sharken 5y ago
  At this point it will be the OS without on-device scanning that wins for me. It's amazing that Apple is still thinking about moving this idea forward, but they must think they are untouchable and can do what they want. And it adds insult to injury that two very different images can generate the same NeuralHash value.
colpabar 5y ago
It feels like you're viewing this as a purely hypothetical question and ignoring reality. No company is 100% good or bad, and it doesn't make any sense to force all possible interpretations into good/bad. >If not, why did we trust Apple that this wasn't happening already? I do not trust Apple. I don't really trust any major tech company, because they put profit first, and everything else comes second. I believe that a company as large as apple is already colluding with government(s) to surveil people, because if a money-making organization is offered a government contract that involves handing over already collected data, and it was kept secret by everyone involved, why would they refuse? I know that's very cynical, but I can't see it any other way. But that's beside the point, which is that what apple is doing is paving the way for normalization of mass government surveillance on devices that we're supposed to own. >If they were corrupted, why tell us about this at all? So that we can all get used to it, and not make a big fuss when google announces android will do the same thing. It's much easier to do things without needing to keep them a secret. This is in no way only about apple, they're just breaking the ice so to speak.
- slg 5y ago
  >I do not trust Apple. I don't really trust any major tech company, because they put profit first, and everything else comes second. Then you should have never been using a closed system like Apple in which they had control over every aspect of it. That is my fundamental point. I'm not saying you should trust Apple. I am saying this shouldn't have changed your opinion on Apple. >So that we can all get used to it, and not make a big fuss when google announces android will do the same thing. It's much easier to do things without needing to keep them a secret. This is in no way only about apple, they're just breaking the ice so to speak. I just need more evidence before I believe a global conspiracy that requires the coordination between both adversarial governments and direct business competitors.