4 ms·

Well yeah it's plausible they would just turn the contents of everyone's entire iCloud backups over to the FBI, which they can totally do right now at any time

Well yeah it's plausible they would just turn the contents of everyone's entire iCloud backups over to the FBI, which they can totally do right now at any time since they already have the keys! So what? What you're describing is not what this system does. You could argue against literally any possibility anyone could dream up, because they're the platform vendor and they can make any change they want. If that's a problem when you're evaluating your threat model then this new system is the least of your worries. And as far as I can see this system is the least intrusive version of what any of the other cloud vendors are doing. Don't want it? Turn off iCloud Photos and sync to something else like your own Nextcloud instance.

jjulius 5y ago
>What you're describing is not what this system does. I said that the hypothetical system could be set up, and function, in the same way as the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system, just with different entities behind it. Despite chastising me for what you thought was a failure to comprehend your post, this is the third time you seem to have been unable to grasp that concept. That's part of what people are concerned about - an identical system running in tandem to this, but with less savory characters behind it. Given how many comments on HN have addressed that this week, including all of mine right here, I am at a loss for how to make that any clearer to you.
- karlshea 5y ago
  Hypothetical system. Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    >Hypothetical system. Right! >Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening. No, and the confusion lies in the tense, "isn't" vs. "won't". A lot of comments have addressed a lack of trust that such a scenario won't happen.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Yes they could do that, but this doesn’t help them.
      - jjulius 5y ago
        >Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Right! I clearly stated multiple times that this would be a second system working in tandem, of course it would need to be deployed on its own. I am entirely unsure how you think I am ignoring that when it's the premise of my argument and of the concern of others.
        zepto 5y ago
        If you are talking about a second system that needs to be deployed in it’s own in the future, then you are not identifying a problem with this system.
        jjulius 5y ago
        Forgive me - I typically try to adhere to the ideal that posts on HN should be constructive and refrain from snark and sarcasm, but this particular comment chain has become so circular and repetitive that the only response I can think of at this point is, “No shit!”. Edit: Removing some paragraphs, because if that's not perfectly clear to you by reading this entire comment thread, even when I basically said as much in the post you just responded to, then I really don't know what to tell you.
        zepto 5y ago
        Right, but the point is that you are talking about this fictional system as though it is causally connected to what Apple is doing, when it really isn’t. You being able to imagine a fictional evil parallel system isn’t a valid criticism of what Apple is actually doing.

jjulius 5y ago

>What you're describing is not what this system does. I said that the hypothetical system could be set up, and function, in the same way as the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system, just with different entities behind it. Despite chastising me for what you thought was a failure to comprehend your post, this is the third time you seem to have been unable to grasp that concept. That's part of what people are concerned about - an identical system running in tandem to this, but with less savory characters behind it. Given how many comments on HN have addressed that this week, including all of mine right here, I am at a loss for how to make that any clearer to you.

karlshea 5y ago
Hypothetical system. Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening.
- jjulius 5y ago
  >Hypothetical system. Right! >Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening. No, and the confusion lies in the tense, "isn't" vs. "won't". A lot of comments have addressed a lack of trust that such a scenario won't happen.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Yes they could do that, but this doesn’t help them.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      >Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Right! I clearly stated multiple times that this would be a second system working in tandem, of course it would need to be deployed on its own. I am entirely unsure how you think I am ignoring that when it's the premise of my argument and of the concern of others.
      - zepto 5y ago
        If you are talking about a second system that needs to be deployed in it’s own in the future, then you are not identifying a problem with this system.
        jjulius 5y ago
        Forgive me - I typically try to adhere to the ideal that posts on HN should be constructive and refrain from snark and sarcasm, but this particular comment chain has become so circular and repetitive that the only response I can think of at this point is, “No shit!”. Edit: Removing some paragraphs, because if that's not perfectly clear to you by reading this entire comment thread, even when I basically said as much in the post you just responded to, then I really don't know what to tell you.
        zepto 5y ago
        Right, but the point is that you are talking about this fictional system as though it is causally connected to what Apple is doing, when it really isn’t. You being able to imagine a fictional evil parallel system isn’t a valid criticism of what Apple is actually doing.