5 ms·

Yes, that's fair and true -- they promised the scanning would self-limit to content being synched with iCloud. But I think that's pretty thin gruel, since now

by dilap 4y ago

Yes, that's fair and true -- they promised the scanning would self-limit to content being synched with iCloud. But I think that's pretty thin gruel, since now you're just a feature-flag (or even a bug) away from all content being scanned. More broadly, the entire endeavor is very much at odds w/ the sentiment expressed in their public advertising.

Clent 4y ago
The point the feature is lost here. They want to scan on device so they do not have to scan it in the cloud. Because people are in full FUD mode on this, we're stuck storing photos without full end-to-end encryption because Apple has do the scanning on their side.
- dilap 4y ago
  Well, there is another option: Apple could actually respect your privacy, support end-to-end encryption, and not scan your content at all.
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    How does this work in regards to a companies obligation (if there is one) to scan for illegal illicit material (I don’t feel like typing that term out that we all know) ?
    - dilap 4y ago
      Sure, if the law requires it, then the company must do it. At that point, you are living under a rather intrusive government!
      - misnome 4y ago
        I don't think there are many governments in the western world that wouldn't get to that point. The entire point of client-side scanning was to head off the possibility of a law saying they have to scan everything server-side for the exact same reasons. > Well, there is another option: Apple could actually respect your privacy, support end-to-end encryption, and not scan your content at all. This is not an option you, or Apple, think there is to choose. Peoples FUD and misrepresentation over what was happening and your snark over "yes but their advertising campaign says things stay on the phone" (which is literally true) is IMO likely actually accelerating the privacy degradation. When they are compelled by law to scan this all centrally in one place in the cloud, I guess you will be happier that it's more invasive but just happening "elsewhere"?
  - lupire 4y ago
    They do, if you choose not to push your content into their servers. If you don't want them to check for unwanted content, don't put your content on their machines.
JimDabell 4y ago
> now you're just a feature-flag (or even a bug) away from all content being scanned. That’s not true. The system didn’t work the way you are assuming. The device had no knowledge of any matches. The “scanning” was a coöperation of client-side and server-side code, each with an extremely limited knowledge of the data involved.
- dilap 4y ago
  I don't think you're correct -- the phone uploads security vouchers from photos, any photos, to Apple's servers. If enough of the vouchers match the image database, Apple can decrypt the vouchers to a low-rez version of the photos. Apple says this would only be used on iCloud synced photos, but I don't see any technical reason the process could not be performed for any photo. Am I mistaken? > The device had no knowledge of any matches. True, but how is it relevant?

by dilap 4y ago

Clent 4y ago

The point the feature is lost here. They want to scan on device so they do not have to scan it in the cloud. Because people are in full FUD mode on this, we're stuck storing photos without full end-to-end encryption because Apple has do the scanning on their side.

dilap 4y ago
Well, there is another option: Apple could actually respect your privacy, support end-to-end encryption, and not scan your content at all.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  How does this work in regards to a companies obligation (if there is one) to scan for illegal illicit material (I don’t feel like typing that term out that we all know) ?
  - dilap 4y ago
    Sure, if the law requires it, then the company must do it. At that point, you are living under a rather intrusive government!
    - misnome 4y ago
      I don't think there are many governments in the western world that wouldn't get to that point. The entire point of client-side scanning was to head off the possibility of a law saying they have to scan everything server-side for the exact same reasons. > Well, there is another option: Apple could actually respect your privacy, support end-to-end encryption, and not scan your content at all. This is not an option you, or Apple, think there is to choose. Peoples FUD and misrepresentation over what was happening and your snark over "yes but their advertising campaign says things stay on the phone" (which is literally true) is IMO likely actually accelerating the privacy degradation. When they are compelled by law to scan this all centrally in one place in the cloud, I guess you will be happier that it's more invasive but just happening "elsewhere"?
- lupire 4y ago
  They do, if you choose not to push your content into their servers. If you don't want them to check for unwanted content, don't put your content on their machines.

JimDabell 4y ago

> now you're just a feature-flag (or even a bug) away from all content being scanned. That’s not true. The system didn’t work the way you are assuming. The device had no knowledge of any matches. The “scanning” was a coöperation of client-side and server-side code, each with an extremely limited knowledge of the data involved.

dilap 4y ago
I don't think you're correct -- the phone uploads security vouchers from photos, any photos, to Apple's servers. If enough of the vouchers match the image database, Apple can decrypt the vouchers to a low-rez version of the photos. Apple says this would only be used on iCloud synced photos, but I don't see any technical reason the process could not be performed for any photo. Am I mistaken? > The device had no knowledge of any matches. True, but how is it relevant?