3 ms·

>Previously pictures weren't scanned directly on my phone, then they were about to be. That was a downgrade of privacy, not an improvement. Absolutely not true

>Previously pictures weren't scanned directly on my phone, then they were about to be. That was a downgrade of privacy, not an improvement. Absolutely not true. When you scan on the server, like Google does, that information is open to abuse by anyone who issues a warrant, and I wouldn't be willing to bet that the warrant is a hard requirement. >Google’s Nest Will Provide Data to Police Without a Warrant https://petapixel.com/2022/07/27/googles-nest-will-provide-data-to-police-without-a-warrant/ https://petapixel.com/2022/07/27/googles-nest-will-provide-d...

gambiting 4y ago
>>Absolutely not true. Which part isn't true? Pictures aren't scanned directly on the phone anywhere, that's true of both Android and iOS. Apple's implementation would change that, again, making their privacy implementation worse not better. >>When you scan on the server, like Google does I don't see how that's relevant. Apple wasn't scanning on their servers(at least that's what they say publicly, I don't doubt that NSA has access to the data anyway).
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  Apple designed their system so that they don't have access to the scan data or the scan results. Google is scanning everything in your Google Drive on server, and that data can be accessed and abused by anyone willing to issue a warrant. Google's system is worse for privacy.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    >>Apple designed their system so that they don't have access to the scan data or the scan results. That's explicitly not true - your phone would scan the photos, if it failed the scan, then the photo would be uploaded to their verification centre where a human would look at the pictures in person and decide to forward them to law enforcement or not. We can argue whether the "verification centre" is Apple having access to scan data/results, but I feel like that's splitting hairs. It's a downgrade for the privacy that you used to have with Apple, not an improvement. >>Google's system is worse for privacy. I have zero idea why you keep bringing Google up. I'm saying that Apple's proposed system is a downgrade of their privacy implementation, not an improvement. What google does or does not do is not relevant to that argument.
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      > That's explicitly not true - your phone would scan the photos, if it failed the scan, then the photo would be uploaded to their verification centre where a human would look at the pictures in person and decide to forward them to law enforcement or not. You seem to be discussing the system Apple never implemented. I am discussing the system that has just been announced. Yes, in the system just announced, it's an opt in parental control where Apple has no access to the images being scanned and doesn't know the scan results, while Google is busily scanning all the contents of everything in your Google account. How do Google customers opt out of that?
      - gambiting 4y ago
        >>You seem to be discussing the system Apple never implemented. What gave it away? The fact that I originally replied to the comment which was discussing that never released CSAM scanning system? >>I am discussing the system that has just been announced. So as I suspected, you are arguing against an argument I have never made. >>How do Google customers opt out of that? How do I opt out of you asking about Google if literally no part of my argument was about Google?

gambiting 4y ago

>>Absolutely not true. Which part isn't true? Pictures aren't scanned directly on the phone anywhere, that's true of both Android and iOS. Apple's implementation would change that, again, making their privacy implementation worse not better. >>When you scan on the server, like Google does I don't see how that's relevant. Apple wasn't scanning on their servers(at least that's what they say publicly, I don't doubt that NSA has access to the data anyway).

GeekyBear 4y ago
Apple designed their system so that they don't have access to the scan data or the scan results. Google is scanning everything in your Google Drive on server, and that data can be accessed and abused by anyone willing to issue a warrant. Google's system is worse for privacy.
- gambiting 4y ago
  >>Apple designed their system so that they don't have access to the scan data or the scan results. That's explicitly not true - your phone would scan the photos, if it failed the scan, then the photo would be uploaded to their verification centre where a human would look at the pictures in person and decide to forward them to law enforcement or not. We can argue whether the "verification centre" is Apple having access to scan data/results, but I feel like that's splitting hairs. It's a downgrade for the privacy that you used to have with Apple, not an improvement. >>Google's system is worse for privacy. I have zero idea why you keep bringing Google up. I'm saying that Apple's proposed system is a downgrade of their privacy implementation, not an improvement. What google does or does not do is not relevant to that argument.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    > That's explicitly not true - your phone would scan the photos, if it failed the scan, then the photo would be uploaded to their verification centre where a human would look at the pictures in person and decide to forward them to law enforcement or not. You seem to be discussing the system Apple never implemented. I am discussing the system that has just been announced. Yes, in the system just announced, it's an opt in parental control where Apple has no access to the images being scanned and doesn't know the scan results, while Google is busily scanning all the contents of everything in your Google account. How do Google customers opt out of that?
    - gambiting 4y ago
      >>You seem to be discussing the system Apple never implemented. What gave it away? The fact that I originally replied to the comment which was discussing that never released CSAM scanning system? >>I am discussing the system that has just been announced. So as I suspected, you are arguing against an argument I have never made. >>How do Google customers opt out of that? How do I opt out of you asking about Google if literally no part of my argument was about Google?