4 ms·

Apple does not spy on your device. They only get information about the data you agree to sending it to them by using their cloud services. It's nothing remotely

Apple does not spy on your device. They only get information about the data you agree to sending it to them by using their cloud services. It's nothing remotely close to the surveillance we are talking about here.

GordonS 5y ago
You could argue that the public at large "agrees" to total surveillance by: 1. Claiming such things are conspiracy theories, despite an abundance of evidence 2. Not giving a shit, even during the (very brief) period where it was covered (very briefly) in the news 3. Buying into all the thingly-veiled gov and media FUD about terrorism, paedophiles, organised criminals and communists 4. Not protesting en-masse 5. Not voting for a party that runs on privacy and anti-surveillance policies 6. Not starting such a party as in (2), since AFAIK it doesn't even exist...
gambiting 5y ago
I think that's a very dishonest take. The scanning takes place on your device before any data is sent to apple. The fact that you were intending to send that data to iCloud is almost irellevant to the entire discussion since apple has clearly built a system for scanning your files on your device, not in the cloud. There's nothing stopping then from using the exact same technology to scan for literally anything on your phone. It's like if apple added a 360° motorized camera in your home but said "don't worry, it's only pointing at the door!"
- oreilles 5y ago
  Your phone is the camera. It can already read and write everything that's inside because that's how an operating system works. There is zero breach of privacy unless the result of the scan are sent without your consent. Just like for everything else that's on your phone, scanned or not.
- Retric 5y ago
  Except Apple already turned iCould on without really making a big deal about it, just up the storage while making everything automatic and nobody would have noticed. This outrage just seems silly in that context because iCloud data is already available on request: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelin... This is “simply” Apple leveraging people’s phones to run perceptual hashes rather than paying for the servers to do it themselves. Which is why the outrage caught them off guard, from their perspective nothing changed governments have been spying like this since 2011.
  - docmars 5y ago
    And on the bit about it being on your phone (rather than their servers), I think it opens the door to an entirely new phenomenon that either companies or governments want people to begin accepting: you no longer own your phone, but rather, rent it under certain conditions. Those conditions would undoubtedly be tied to social credit scores, required viewing of ads, required on-demand "checking in" with the government, and direct access to local phone data on demand to catch and prosecute political dissidents sharing critical information and memes. Example: Australians are now required to install an app that has them taking a photo of themselves and sent to authorities to enforce COVID mandates like staying in one location, even if you're not sick: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-australia-still-liberal-democracy/619940/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a... Semi-related - social credit score system: https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-australian-government-plans-chinese-style-social-credit-system-for-social-media-users https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-australian-government-pl...
    - oreilles 5y ago
      You never owned an iPhone. You can't read the OS source, you can't install other OS, you can't sideload apps, you can't repair it yourself, you can't buy official spare parts, and you cannot even reuse the parts of your phone. There is no changes whatsoever in that regard. You never owned your iPhone, and you still don't, no more, no less than before.
      - docmars 5y ago
        You're not wrong!
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    I think the idea that Apple is just moving rote hash calculations from the server to the phone - and therefore they were “surprised” anyone cared - does a disservice to the smart people at Apple. They’re not dummies and they didn’t think this would be an easy sell. The question of whether we can and should build client-side scanning has been a huge and controversial issue in our community since at least 2019 — when AG William Barr wrote an open letter to Facebook requesting these features. As a cryptographer who works on E2EE I’ve been reading opinion pieces on this, writing pieces and attending Stanford-hosted workshops since that time. Many people attended those workshops from child safety groups, policy think tanks and other tech firms. Apple was also invited and declined to attend. But to imagine they didn’t realize how controversial these systems would be — that defies belief. They would have to be living in a cave, and the Apple security leaders don’t live in a cave. The Apple system was clearly designed to enable scanning on E2EE backup files. The fact that iCloud isn’t E2EE right now is amusing, but I think it’s safe to assume that they want to enable that feature but felt they needed this coverage. Apple doesn’t share their reasoning, but it’s fairly obvious they felt some strong pressure — largely instigated by government agencies and members of the Senate - to implement some kind of “voluntary compromise” here. This is the one they chose. Where they were surprised, I think, is that there was so much broad negative reaction beyond the usual suspects like privacy groups. As you said, server-side scanning is already ubiquitous so what’s the big deal? My suspicion is that “server side scanning of your private files is ubiquitous” is something that is only actually well-known to tech experts. Most of the general public is ignorant about all this, and they only really get a chance to react to any of this technology when something big makes it national news: as Apple did this summer. (Putting it on your phone and making it apply to private backup photos rather than shared albums, as some cloud providers have in the past, also didn’t help.)
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  > "The fact that you were intending to send that data to iCloud is almost irellevant to the entire discussion since apple has clearly built a system for scanning your files on your device" This is a very dishonest take. They already have a system which runs on your device and processes all photos in the photo library, tagging categories like faces and pets and food and so on. They could have added this new system into that one with much less engineering and design effort using a system which scans all your files. They didn't, they went to a lot of extra effort not to. They already have system services e.g. location awareness or device monitoring and diagnostics, they could have built this new system as something like which would run 24/7 and access everything and be a simpler design, and they didn't. What they did was put it into the iCloud upload feature to be matched by additional code on the iCloud server side. Something which took them more time, more effort, more complexity, and gave the whole thing less power and less flexibility. If this system is as dreadful as all the complaints say, it should be plenty of ways to show that without having to make stuff up. If describing it accurately isn't scary enough, maybe it's not as scary as y'all want people to think.

GordonS 5y ago

You could argue that the public at large "agrees" to total surveillance by: 1. Claiming such things are conspiracy theories, despite an abundance of evidence 2. Not giving a shit, even during the (very brief) period where it was covered (very briefly) in the news 3. Buying into all the thingly-veiled gov and media FUD about terrorism, paedophiles, organised criminals and communists 4. Not protesting en-masse 5. Not voting for a party that runs on privacy and anti-surveillance policies 6. Not starting such a party as in (2), since AFAIK it doesn't even exist...

gambiting 5y ago

I think that's a very dishonest take. The scanning takes place on your device before any data is sent to apple. The fact that you were intending to send that data to iCloud is almost irellevant to the entire discussion since apple has clearly built a system for scanning your files on your device, not in the cloud. There's nothing stopping then from using the exact same technology to scan for literally anything on your phone. It's like if apple added a 360° motorized camera in your home but said "don't worry, it's only pointing at the door!"

oreilles 5y ago
Your phone is the camera. It can already read and write everything that's inside because that's how an operating system works. There is zero breach of privacy unless the result of the scan are sent without your consent. Just like for everything else that's on your phone, scanned or not.
Retric 5y ago
Except Apple already turned iCould on without really making a big deal about it, just up the storage while making everything automatic and nobody would have noticed. This outrage just seems silly in that context because iCloud data is already available on request: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelin... This is “simply” Apple leveraging people’s phones to run perceptual hashes rather than paying for the servers to do it themselves. Which is why the outrage caught them off guard, from their perspective nothing changed governments have been spying like this since 2011.
- docmars 5y ago
  And on the bit about it being on your phone (rather than their servers), I think it opens the door to an entirely new phenomenon that either companies or governments want people to begin accepting: you no longer own your phone, but rather, rent it under certain conditions. Those conditions would undoubtedly be tied to social credit scores, required viewing of ads, required on-demand "checking in" with the government, and direct access to local phone data on demand to catch and prosecute political dissidents sharing critical information and memes. Example: Australians are now required to install an app that has them taking a photo of themselves and sent to authorities to enforce COVID mandates like staying in one location, even if you're not sick: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-australia-still-liberal-democracy/619940/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a... Semi-related - social credit score system: https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-australian-government-plans-chinese-style-social-credit-system-for-social-media-users https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-australian-government-pl...
  - oreilles 5y ago
    You never owned an iPhone. You can't read the OS source, you can't install other OS, you can't sideload apps, you can't repair it yourself, you can't buy official spare parts, and you cannot even reuse the parts of your phone. There is no changes whatsoever in that regard. You never owned your iPhone, and you still don't, no more, no less than before.
    - docmars 5y ago
      You're not wrong!
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  I think the idea that Apple is just moving rote hash calculations from the server to the phone - and therefore they were “surprised” anyone cared - does a disservice to the smart people at Apple. They’re not dummies and they didn’t think this would be an easy sell. The question of whether we can and should build client-side scanning has been a huge and controversial issue in our community since at least 2019 — when AG William Barr wrote an open letter to Facebook requesting these features. As a cryptographer who works on E2EE I’ve been reading opinion pieces on this, writing pieces and attending Stanford-hosted workshops since that time. Many people attended those workshops from child safety groups, policy think tanks and other tech firms. Apple was also invited and declined to attend. But to imagine they didn’t realize how controversial these systems would be — that defies belief. They would have to be living in a cave, and the Apple security leaders don’t live in a cave. The Apple system was clearly designed to enable scanning on E2EE backup files. The fact that iCloud isn’t E2EE right now is amusing, but I think it’s safe to assume that they want to enable that feature but felt they needed this coverage. Apple doesn’t share their reasoning, but it’s fairly obvious they felt some strong pressure — largely instigated by government agencies and members of the Senate - to implement some kind of “voluntary compromise” here. This is the one they chose. Where they were surprised, I think, is that there was so much broad negative reaction beyond the usual suspects like privacy groups. As you said, server-side scanning is already ubiquitous so what’s the big deal? My suspicion is that “server side scanning of your private files is ubiquitous” is something that is only actually well-known to tech experts. Most of the general public is ignorant about all this, and they only really get a chance to react to any of this technology when something big makes it national news: as Apple did this summer. (Putting it on your phone and making it apply to private backup photos rather than shared albums, as some cloud providers have in the past, also didn’t help.)
jodrellblank 5y ago
> "The fact that you were intending to send that data to iCloud is almost irellevant to the entire discussion since apple has clearly built a system for scanning your files on your device" This is a very dishonest take. They already have a system which runs on your device and processes all photos in the photo library, tagging categories like faces and pets and food and so on. They could have added this new system into that one with much less engineering and design effort using a system which scans all your files. They didn't, they went to a lot of extra effort not to. They already have system services e.g. location awareness or device monitoring and diagnostics, they could have built this new system as something like which would run 24/7 and access everything and be a simpler design, and they didn't. What they did was put it into the iCloud upload feature to be matched by additional code on the iCloud server side. Something which took them more time, more effort, more complexity, and gave the whole thing less power and less flexibility. If this system is as dreadful as all the complaints say, it should be plenty of ways to show that without having to make stuff up. If describing it accurately isn't scary enough, maybe it's not as scary as y'all want people to think.