5 ms·

I don't want a conversation. I don't want it, and I don't want to compromise. Plenty of people think the same.

by R0b0t1 5y ago

ithkuil 5y ago
How can you be sure to know what is it what you don't want if you want to have a conversation?
- gigel82 5y ago
  I don't want any functionality capable of scanning photos on my device for "illegal" content; I simply don't want that code living on my device no matter how restricted its (initially planned) use is.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    Fair enough. Framing it like that it seems like a small step from a dystopia. But let's face it, we're feet deep in it already: unless you control what code runs on your device you're never safe from code that scans data on your device. I not sure I really buy the slippery slope argument. If in the future Apple wanted to be more intrusive, they would just be more intrusive and scan your photos on your device for real, not with a convoluted and probabilistic fingerprint method. What is the weak point? To get people accustomed to being scanned? Aren't people already? Your content is already scanned the moment it reaches to the cloud. What does this extra client-side scanning add to the dystopia that we're not already experiencing?
    - gigel82 5y ago
      It's the opening of Pandora's box. Scanning your device is a huge paradigm shift; we all know the cloud is "someone else's computer" and untrustworthy but thus far one's device was sacred and no one dared touch it. The floodgates are open now; politicians and other "interested parties" have watched this unfold very carefully and gleefully noted the majority didn't care as much as everyone expected, so they'll definitely be pushing for it now. Imagine Windows Defender (an antimalware / antivirus distributed with all versions of Windows and enabled by default) starts scanning one's hard drive (and attached external drives) for image files (it already scans documents and executables and even uploads samples of malicious binaries to Microsoft for analysis): how would you / the world react?
      - ithkuil 5y ago
        > Scanning your device is a huge paradigm shift But that's not what they want to do. They want to perform a client side fingerprint of a subset of images before they get uploaded to the cloud. You can argue that they could in the future turn this into a scan of everything on the device. But you can also argue that if that's what they want to do in the future they'll do it in the future. It's all about trust. If you don't trust Apple to not push nefarious code on your devices, stay away from Apple, and that's true even before all this.
onethought 5y ago
It’s really not a compromise. They found a way to scan your photos for illegal stuff without during upload without compromising encryption. Meanwhile all the major competitors just openly inspect All your photos. This is equivalent getting up set with Signal because it spell checks your text as you write it: “you are scanning what I write!!!!”
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > without compromising encryption. Apple holds the keys to all iCloud backups and regularly uses them in order to serve customers' data in response to data requests from the government. Apple gives up US customer data for about 150,000 users/accounts a year[1]. [1] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
  - onethought 5y ago
    As do all the competitors… but they can also access your photos for random data mining. Which no one has shown Apple do that. We know 100% google do it…
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    Yes the currently do. The goal of this new system is to allow them to no longer have such keys while at the same time not allowing just any content to be uploaded to their cloud systems. If you want to upload anything on their cloud storage you need to pre-encrypt it with some other application and the upload it as a raw file.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      > The goal of this new system is to allow them to no longer have such keys while at the same time not allowing just any content to be uploaded to their cloud systems. That's incredibly charitable speculation.

I don't want a conversation. I don't want it, and I don't want to compromise. Plenty of people think the same.

by R0b0t1 5y ago

I don't want a conversation. I don't want it, and I don't want to compromise. Plenty of people think the same.

ithkuil 5y ago

How can you be sure to know what is it what you don't want if you want to have a conversation?

gigel82 5y ago
I don't want any functionality capable of scanning photos on my device for "illegal" content; I simply don't want that code living on my device no matter how restricted its (initially planned) use is.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Fair enough. Framing it like that it seems like a small step from a dystopia. But let's face it, we're feet deep in it already: unless you control what code runs on your device you're never safe from code that scans data on your device. I not sure I really buy the slippery slope argument. If in the future Apple wanted to be more intrusive, they would just be more intrusive and scan your photos on your device for real, not with a convoluted and probabilistic fingerprint method. What is the weak point? To get people accustomed to being scanned? Aren't people already? Your content is already scanned the moment it reaches to the cloud. What does this extra client-side scanning add to the dystopia that we're not already experiencing?
  - gigel82 5y ago
    It's the opening of Pandora's box. Scanning your device is a huge paradigm shift; we all know the cloud is "someone else's computer" and untrustworthy but thus far one's device was sacred and no one dared touch it. The floodgates are open now; politicians and other "interested parties" have watched this unfold very carefully and gleefully noted the majority didn't care as much as everyone expected, so they'll definitely be pushing for it now. Imagine Windows Defender (an antimalware / antivirus distributed with all versions of Windows and enabled by default) starts scanning one's hard drive (and attached external drives) for image files (it already scans documents and executables and even uploads samples of malicious binaries to Microsoft for analysis): how would you / the world react?
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      > Scanning your device is a huge paradigm shift But that's not what they want to do. They want to perform a client side fingerprint of a subset of images before they get uploaded to the cloud. You can argue that they could in the future turn this into a scan of everything on the device. But you can also argue that if that's what they want to do in the future they'll do it in the future. It's all about trust. If you don't trust Apple to not push nefarious code on your devices, stay away from Apple, and that's true even before all this.

onethought 5y ago

It’s really not a compromise. They found a way to scan your photos for illegal stuff without during upload without compromising encryption. Meanwhile all the major competitors just openly inspect All your photos. This is equivalent getting up set with Signal because it spell checks your text as you write it: “you are scanning what I write!!!!”

heavyset_go 5y ago
> without compromising encryption. Apple holds the keys to all iCloud backups and regularly uses them in order to serve customers' data in response to data requests from the government. Apple gives up US customer data for about 150,000 users/accounts a year[1]. [1] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
- onethought 5y ago
  As do all the competitors… but they can also access your photos for random data mining. Which no one has shown Apple do that. We know 100% google do it…
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Yes the currently do. The goal of this new system is to allow them to no longer have such keys while at the same time not allowing just any content to be uploaded to their cloud systems. If you want to upload anything on their cloud storage you need to pre-encrypt it with some other application and the upload it as a raw file.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > The goal of this new system is to allow them to no longer have such keys while at the same time not allowing just any content to be uploaded to their cloud systems. That's incredibly charitable speculation.