4 ms·

I know Whatsapp photos that I never even opened (from groups I probably muted long ago) end up in the phone library whenever I do the (manual) monthly photo dum

I know Whatsapp photos that I never even opened (from groups I probably muted long ago) end up in the phone library whenever I do the (manual) monthly photo dump to my PC. But yes, I agree with the comment, there's no reason to hide between details: Apple plans to introduce the capability of scanning photos on your local device and comparing hashes against an opaque (non-reviewable) list of hashes that they (along with governments) control (details about how they plan to initially employ this capability are irrelevant).

marcellus23 5y ago
Sure, but then don't pretend that this is not something every other cloud provider is doing (and has been doing) for years. This is only such a hot-button issue because 1) people love bashing Apple, and 2) Apple actually solicited feedback instead of implementing it silently behind the scenes.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  It's interesting how our minds just give up when we realize all cloud providers are doing it. We accept our fate as weak consumers, unable to do anything.
- gigel82 5y ago
  Oh, I totally know all cloud providers are scanning photos in their cloud and I totally accepted that (hence why I mentioned I do manual photo drops from the phone and upload them to private cloud storage). What no one has done before and what I totally don't accept is someone scanning photos on my device, which is what Apple is doing. The in the cloud vs. on your device aspect of this debate is the most important part and cannot be glossed over.
  - kemayo 5y ago
    > The in the cloud vs. on your device aspect of this debate is the most important part and cannot be glossed over. I really do think it's a weird aspect to fixate on, though. So long as Apple is only scanning the photos that're being uploaded to its servers, it genuinely doesn't matter to me where that scanning happens. It's a scan that could have happened in either location, and the version where it's happening locally is arguably more private/secure-from-fishing-expeditions. If I don't like that the scanning occurs, I can disable the uploading. The distinction would matter if the local-scan involved things that weren't being uploaded. But it doesn't, so from my perspective the only difference is an implementation detail.
    - gigel82 5y ago
      > If I don't like that the scanning occurs, I can disable the uploading. You can already do that today (I do). > But it doesn't Maybe, maybe not. Even if I were to trust Apple 100% it's again a matter of principle (no local scanning). Imagine the uproar if Microsoft Defender (which comes in-box enabled-by-default on all Windows 10/11 PCs) were to suddenly start scanning photos (it already scans executables and Office documents), hashing them against some opaque "database" and attaching tokens to suspicious ones that would be analyzed when uploaded to OneDrive (again, enabled by default for your Documents\Photos on Windows 10/11 if you use a MS Account). Then on top of that, imagine Windows was a walled garden a-la iOS and you couldn't uninstall / disable / replace Defender with a different tool (which you totally can today). I think there would be massive outrage in the press with MS being dragged through the mud for months, and droves of users switching to alternatives (like Linux) overnight. Yet (except for a few privacy / freedom organizations and a little press bleep) Apple gets to shake it off scot-free; I don't understand the dissonance.
      - amznthrwaway 5y ago
        Microsoft already checks hashes against known child pornography when you put things into OneDrive, so the uproar should be fairly minimal if they scanned sooner. The really odd thing is that Apple does the scanner client-side so that the content can be encrypted, protecting your privacy more generally, and somehow a bunch of folks like you think it’s much much worse. Candidly, I think this is manufactured outrage from weird nerds who have “don’t like Apple” as part of their existing identity. These weird nerds, like you, jump through massive logical contortions to explain why it’s horrible.

marcellus23 5y ago

Sure, but then don't pretend that this is not something every other cloud provider is doing (and has been doing) for years. This is only such a hot-button issue because 1) people love bashing Apple, and 2) Apple actually solicited feedback instead of implementing it silently behind the scenes.

peakaboo 5y ago
It's interesting how our minds just give up when we realize all cloud providers are doing it. We accept our fate as weak consumers, unable to do anything.
gigel82 5y ago
Oh, I totally know all cloud providers are scanning photos in their cloud and I totally accepted that (hence why I mentioned I do manual photo drops from the phone and upload them to private cloud storage). What no one has done before and what I totally don't accept is someone scanning photos on my device, which is what Apple is doing. The in the cloud vs. on your device aspect of this debate is the most important part and cannot be glossed over.
- kemayo 5y ago
  > The in the cloud vs. on your device aspect of this debate is the most important part and cannot be glossed over. I really do think it's a weird aspect to fixate on, though. So long as Apple is only scanning the photos that're being uploaded to its servers, it genuinely doesn't matter to me where that scanning happens. It's a scan that could have happened in either location, and the version where it's happening locally is arguably more private/secure-from-fishing-expeditions. If I don't like that the scanning occurs, I can disable the uploading. The distinction would matter if the local-scan involved things that weren't being uploaded. But it doesn't, so from my perspective the only difference is an implementation detail.
  - gigel82 5y ago
    > If I don't like that the scanning occurs, I can disable the uploading. You can already do that today (I do). > But it doesn't Maybe, maybe not. Even if I were to trust Apple 100% it's again a matter of principle (no local scanning). Imagine the uproar if Microsoft Defender (which comes in-box enabled-by-default on all Windows 10/11 PCs) were to suddenly start scanning photos (it already scans executables and Office documents), hashing them against some opaque "database" and attaching tokens to suspicious ones that would be analyzed when uploaded to OneDrive (again, enabled by default for your Documents\Photos on Windows 10/11 if you use a MS Account). Then on top of that, imagine Windows was a walled garden a-la iOS and you couldn't uninstall / disable / replace Defender with a different tool (which you totally can today). I think there would be massive outrage in the press with MS being dragged through the mud for months, and droves of users switching to alternatives (like Linux) overnight. Yet (except for a few privacy / freedom organizations and a little press bleep) Apple gets to shake it off scot-free; I don't understand the dissonance.
    - amznthrwaway 5y ago
      Microsoft already checks hashes against known child pornography when you put things into OneDrive, so the uproar should be fairly minimal if they scanned sooner. The really odd thing is that Apple does the scanner client-side so that the content can be encrypted, protecting your privacy more generally, and somehow a bunch of folks like you think it’s much much worse. Candidly, I think this is manufactured outrage from weird nerds who have “don’t like Apple” as part of their existing identity. These weird nerds, like you, jump through massive logical contortions to explain why it’s horrible.