3 ms·

It is hard to square the idea that Apple’s proposed CSAM detection pipeline is a fundamental affront to privacy, a human right, with the argument that turning o

It is hard to square the idea that Apple’s proposed CSAM detection pipeline is a fundamental affront to privacy, a human right, with the argument that turning off iCloud Photos is a false choice because alternatives don’t or can’t have feature parity. Even more so because every cloud photo service with the scale and quality of iCloud Photos is doing the same (and arguably worse!). I use Nextcloud and it is a more or less ok user experience; the major inconvenience is that your photo library isn’t available in UIImagePickerControllers. The image preview mechanics you describe can already be simulated with file provider APIs. Edit. I think my point more simply stated is that if you think turning off iCloud Photos or switching photo sync with another cloud provider “solved” the privacy problem, then you are in the same group of people who are annoyed that they can’t use Spotify with Siri or AirPlay 2. Welcome to the large number of 2nd class citizens on iOS. It’s not great out here, but it certainly doesn’t make the toggle a false choice.

matthewdgreen 5y ago
I don’t think you need to square those options. I think that scanning people’s photos is very much an affront to privacy. Apple clearly agrees with me at some level because they are advertising that their system is “opt in”: you only get scanned if you turn on iCloud Photos. But this argument assumes that for most users this is a choice. For many users who have purchased iPhones with lower storage levels this is not really a choice — they have to use iCloud Photos to get the functionality they paid for, else they can’t synchronize photos and have to manually manage and risk deleting photos. They can use third party apps, but only with reduced functionality because Apple has chosen to privilege their own cloud service and lock those functions away from third party developers. To me it seems like Apple’s opt-in consent argument would make sense if and only if they offered users equivalent choices in third party cloud functionality: which they don’t.
- shuckles 5y ago
  The user to whom Apple’s offer is a false choice is one that assumed they would always be able to update to the latest iOS while uploading whatever photos they wanted into iCloud Photo Library without any kind of content scanning. Turning private API into public API is a huge investment, and I’ll be honest: this hypothetical user seems quite far-fetched, and I don’t see how this investment is worthwhile for Apple to make. Especially so because most of the criticism is about a slippery slope where all rules don’t apply: Apple could just as easily scan the photos the 3rd party processes as well. So what incremental privacy do they even gain?
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    You seem to be conflating a number of very different issues. It would be a lot simpler if you didn’t do that. There are several separate questions. 1) Should users have the right to opt out of scanning. Apple have answered (1) in the affirmative: yes, they understand that some users want this option and have designed their system with explicit guarantees that users can do this. This is not an accident or a miscalculation on Apple’s part. They clearly understand that forcing this scanning on non-consenting users is unacceptable and their marketing copy makes this clear. The second question (2) is whether Apple’s compromise to preserve user privacy (allowing users to disable photo sync while providing no third-party alternatives with equivalent feature sets) is acceptable. Apple presumably thinks it is. I think that disabling Apple’s photo sync features will not be acceptable — and indeed will be actively harmful to some users. We can disagree about whether this matters but this is the heart of the disagreement. Having strong opinions doesn’t settle the question, it just demonstrates that the issue is contentious. Settling the issue requires user surveys and an economic analysis at minimum, not opinions on HN. Then there is a third point (3): does Apple have any obligation to provide opt-out users with alternative services that bring their devices back to the full functionality that they possessed when the devices were purchased. Your view is that “this is not worth it to Apple.” We do not disagree. My claim is that Apple’s view on the issue is not necessarily the final world on the issue. Apple also believes that they should have a monopoly on app distribution and many other aspects that define the iOS experience. These views are disputed and there is no “correct” answer. My claim is that the operation of cloud infrastructure should be a part of this dispute, and Apple’s decision to make their system “opt in” should be viewed as such in light of the fact that Apple controls essential features in such a way that Apple can effectively hobble the device of any user who declines to consent, with no recourse or alternative available to the user. I think your response to this has to grapple with Apple’s very clear argument on (1). Which means that “Apple can do whatever it wants because they’re powerful” isn’t a sufficient response. And if the rest of your answer revolves around unsupported hypotheses about what Apple users expected, then you should probably come back with some strong evidence like user surveys to support those claims.
    - shuckles 5y ago

matthewdgreen 5y ago

I don’t think you need to square those options. I think that scanning people’s photos is very much an affront to privacy. Apple clearly agrees with me at some level because they are advertising that their system is “opt in”: you only get scanned if you turn on iCloud Photos. But this argument assumes that for most users this is a choice. For many users who have purchased iPhones with lower storage levels this is not really a choice — they have to use iCloud Photos to get the functionality they paid for, else they can’t synchronize photos and have to manually manage and risk deleting photos. They can use third party apps, but only with reduced functionality because Apple has chosen to privilege their own cloud service and lock those functions away from third party developers. To me it seems like Apple’s opt-in consent argument would make sense if and only if they offered users equivalent choices in third party cloud functionality: which they don’t.

shuckles 5y ago
The user to whom Apple’s offer is a false choice is one that assumed they would always be able to update to the latest iOS while uploading whatever photos they wanted into iCloud Photo Library without any kind of content scanning. Turning private API into public API is a huge investment, and I’ll be honest: this hypothetical user seems quite far-fetched, and I don’t see how this investment is worthwhile for Apple to make. Especially so because most of the criticism is about a slippery slope where all rules don’t apply: Apple could just as easily scan the photos the 3rd party processes as well. So what incremental privacy do they even gain?
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  You seem to be conflating a number of very different issues. It would be a lot simpler if you didn’t do that. There are several separate questions. 1) Should users have the right to opt out of scanning. Apple have answered (1) in the affirmative: yes, they understand that some users want this option and have designed their system with explicit guarantees that users can do this. This is not an accident or a miscalculation on Apple’s part. They clearly understand that forcing this scanning on non-consenting users is unacceptable and their marketing copy makes this clear. The second question (2) is whether Apple’s compromise to preserve user privacy (allowing users to disable photo sync while providing no third-party alternatives with equivalent feature sets) is acceptable. Apple presumably thinks it is. I think that disabling Apple’s photo sync features will not be acceptable — and indeed will be actively harmful to some users. We can disagree about whether this matters but this is the heart of the disagreement. Having strong opinions doesn’t settle the question, it just demonstrates that the issue is contentious. Settling the issue requires user surveys and an economic analysis at minimum, not opinions on HN. Then there is a third point (3): does Apple have any obligation to provide opt-out users with alternative services that bring their devices back to the full functionality that they possessed when the devices were purchased. Your view is that “this is not worth it to Apple.” We do not disagree. My claim is that Apple’s view on the issue is not necessarily the final world on the issue. Apple also believes that they should have a monopoly on app distribution and many other aspects that define the iOS experience. These views are disputed and there is no “correct” answer. My claim is that the operation of cloud infrastructure should be a part of this dispute, and Apple’s decision to make their system “opt in” should be viewed as such in light of the fact that Apple controls essential features in such a way that Apple can effectively hobble the device of any user who declines to consent, with no recourse or alternative available to the user. I think your response to this has to grapple with Apple’s very clear argument on (1). Which means that “Apple can do whatever it wants because they’re powerful” isn’t a sufficient response. And if the rest of your answer revolves around unsupported hypotheses about what Apple users expected, then you should probably come back with some strong evidence like user surveys to support those claims.
  - shuckles 5y ago