> What you described is merely a mitigation of a massive loss in security and privacy If we're looking at the end result, a mitigation of a loss of privacy is

> What you described is merely a mitigation of a massive loss in security and privacy If we're looking at the end result, a mitigation of a loss of privacy is an increase in privacy compared to the alternative, no? I mean clearly what you're saying here is "scanning always bad!". I understand that, I really do. I'm saying that scanning was never not on the table for a large corporation hosting photos on their server. Apple held out on the in-cloud scanning because they wanted a "better" scanning, and GP's point is that it's ironic that the one cloud provider willing to try to make a "less bad" scanning option is the one most demonized in the media. None of this is to argue that scanning is anything less than a loss in security and privacy. Yes, yes, E2EE running on free and open source software that I personally can recompile from source would be the best option.