4 ms·

Look, I'll just say it directly because (slippery-slope fallacy aside) we all know this is how things will play out in a few years after this gets rolled out:

Look, I'll just say it directly because (slippery-slope fallacy aside) we all know this is how things will play out in a few years after this gets rolled out: gov: "hey Apple, pedophiles are rampant rn, do you really need to wait before the devices upload photos to icloud before you use that on-device scanning? here's some cool proposed legislation to motivate the conversation. oh also here's some more images that are illegal." This conversation will happen behind closed doors with much better wording and probably with real stakes for Apple. They've built a dream technology for control freaks in government across the world, something that we in the technology sphere have traditionally fought against for decades. All it just needs is a honest day's work to scan all the time vs on upload. This is the fight to fight if you'd rather just not deal with a future when, surprise, the scope creeped but now its too normal to oppose. People will get vanned by less benign government who interpret things far more mundane than pedophilia as undesirable.

oreilles 5y ago
If Apple wanted to make the iPhone a sandwich, we could eat it. But until then you can't. Apple could read your whole phone content and send it to governments without your consent if they wanted to, on device-scanning or not. Util they do, there is no breach of privacy. If you believe Apple can implement one-party consent snitching on iPhone without telling anyone, then you shouldn't use closed source software in the first place, because there is zero reason to believe that they haven't already implemented this.
- malwrar 5y ago
  > Apple could read your whole phone content and send it to governments without your consent if they wanted to, on device-scanning or not. Util they do, there is no breach of privacy. This misses the point. Apple has repeatedly assured its customers (I’m waiting for my Pinephone to get here so I no longer need to be one) that the devices they buy are theirs. This is how things always have been, and although you’re right they could in theory slip some law enforcement update on my phone, they’re publicly refused to do so before and I trusted them as a result. They’re not secretly slipping in a government backdoor though, they’re backpedaling on their promises and openly installing a backdoor on my phone for no reason. Why let this slide like it’s normal, or pretend like this isn’t a betrayal? They refused to unlock an iPhone owned by a mass shooter! Plus, for many people, Apple and Android are basically the only options for modern computing. Their decisions in this market normalize stuff like this. I don’t want future devices to be forced to implement easily-abused crap like this because Apple convinced people this is a solvable problem with machine accuracy. We’re already seeing this for open questions like moderation and copyright enforcement, with horrific results that are now just normal.
  - oreilles 5y ago
    > Apple has repeatedly assured its customers that the devices they buy are theirs That is definetly not true. Apple has always been anti-ownership. By making the OS closed source, preventing installation of other OS, preventing sideloading applications, preventing self repair, preventing parts distribution etc etc. What they used to say is that what's on your device stays on your device, and that you decide what you share. And they stay true to that promise. If you don't want to share you pictures with Apple, you don't use iCloud photos, end of the story. > openly installing a backdoor on my phone A backdoor is defined by two characteristics: one, the user do not know the existence of the backdoor. Two, the backdoor allows the attacker to bypass device security in order to gain access. You know the existence of the scanning feature, and this feature does not allow Apple nor anyone to gain access or information about what's on your phone without your consent. It is not a backdoor in any way you can think of it.
skoskie 5y ago
I think you make the perfect point, with one exception. Rather than future tense, it should be past tense. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/senate-judiciary-committee-wants-everyone-know-its-concerned-about-encryption https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/senate-judiciary-commi... > This conversation will happen behind closed doors It did. > with much better wording and probably with real stakes for Apple. Pretty much. Quote from the infamous Lindsay Graham (2019): “My advice to [big tech] is to get on with it, because this time next year, if we haven't found a way [to get at illegal, encrypted material] that you can live with, we will impose our will on you.”
- pope_meat 5y ago
  Someone should throw an iphone at Lindsey like that guy did with his shoes at Bush. It'll probably do little, but at least it will be satisfying.

oreilles 5y ago

If Apple wanted to make the iPhone a sandwich, we could eat it. But until then you can't. Apple could read your whole phone content and send it to governments without your consent if they wanted to, on device-scanning or not. Util they do, there is no breach of privacy. If you believe Apple can implement one-party consent snitching on iPhone without telling anyone, then you shouldn't use closed source software in the first place, because there is zero reason to believe that they haven't already implemented this.

malwrar 5y ago
> Apple could read your whole phone content and send it to governments without your consent if they wanted to, on device-scanning or not. Util they do, there is no breach of privacy. This misses the point. Apple has repeatedly assured its customers (I’m waiting for my Pinephone to get here so I no longer need to be one) that the devices they buy are theirs. This is how things always have been, and although you’re right they could in theory slip some law enforcement update on my phone, they’re publicly refused to do so before and I trusted them as a result. They’re not secretly slipping in a government backdoor though, they’re backpedaling on their promises and openly installing a backdoor on my phone for no reason. Why let this slide like it’s normal, or pretend like this isn’t a betrayal? They refused to unlock an iPhone owned by a mass shooter! Plus, for many people, Apple and Android are basically the only options for modern computing. Their decisions in this market normalize stuff like this. I don’t want future devices to be forced to implement easily-abused crap like this because Apple convinced people this is a solvable problem with machine accuracy. We’re already seeing this for open questions like moderation and copyright enforcement, with horrific results that are now just normal.
- oreilles 5y ago
  > Apple has repeatedly assured its customers that the devices they buy are theirs That is definetly not true. Apple has always been anti-ownership. By making the OS closed source, preventing installation of other OS, preventing sideloading applications, preventing self repair, preventing parts distribution etc etc. What they used to say is that what's on your device stays on your device, and that you decide what you share. And they stay true to that promise. If you don't want to share you pictures with Apple, you don't use iCloud photos, end of the story. > openly installing a backdoor on my phone A backdoor is defined by two characteristics: one, the user do not know the existence of the backdoor. Two, the backdoor allows the attacker to bypass device security in order to gain access. You know the existence of the scanning feature, and this feature does not allow Apple nor anyone to gain access or information about what's on your phone without your consent. It is not a backdoor in any way you can think of it.

skoskie 5y ago

I think you make the perfect point, with one exception. Rather than future tense, it should be past tense. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/senate-judiciary-committee-wants-everyone-know-its-concerned-about-encryption https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/senate-judiciary-commi... > This conversation will happen behind closed doors It did. > with much better wording and probably with real stakes for Apple. Pretty much. Quote from the infamous Lindsay Graham (2019): “My advice to [big tech] is to get on with it, because this time next year, if we haven't found a way [to get at illegal, encrypted material] that you can live with, we will impose our will on you.”

pope_meat 5y ago
Someone should throw an iphone at Lindsey like that guy did with his shoes at Bush. It'll probably do little, but at least it will be satisfying.