5 ms·
As long as they don't try to bring back on-device scanning "for the children" we're good.
by gigel82 3y ago
As long as they don't try to bring back on-device scanning "for the children" we're good.
- brookst 3y agoYou prefer the Google model where nobody knows what they scan for, it’s easy to scan for different things in different countries, and there is no auditing of sources providing hashes to be scanned?
- uoaei 3y agoYou prefer false dichotomies that derail meaningful discussions?
- brookst 3y agoHuh? It’s a real dichotomy. We have one model today that all companies use. Apple proposed an alternative that people hated, so we still have the secret cloud scanning with no auditability or transparency. How in the world is that a false dichotomy? It is literally a choice betweeen two options that people were very adamant about.
- idle_zealot 3y agoYou are missing the third option: no scanning anywhere.
- nceqs3 3y ago>You are missing the third option: no scanning anywhere. What a take. Thankfully the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you in the slightest. Also private companies can do whatever they please.
- idle_zealot 3y agoI don't think "pervasive digital surveillance is bad" is an unpopular opinion here.
- nceqs3 3y agoHN is not America (thank god) Private companies catching child predators is actually pretty popular.
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y agoAnd IBM compiling databases with ethnic background was pretty popular with a particular Teutonic political movement. You guys should look it up, you'll find lots of handy strategies to copy.
- brookst 3y agoYou're quite right. It's a reductive, simplistic opinion, but extremely popular.
- brookst 3y agoWell how about the fourth option: nobody ever does anything bad? Seems about as realistic and well-grounded as your proposal.
- gigel82 3y agoI don't use any public cloud, so they can scan to their heart's content in their cloud for whatever they want. As long as they keep their grubby paws off the device we're all good.
- brookst 3y agoApple's proposal only scanned content just before it was uploaded to the cloud. Anything you keep locally (or at least don't use their servers for) was not scanned.
- gigel82 3y agoDon't want to reopen that can of worms since a lot of people were triggered by the distinction but in my case I simply don't want that functionality on my device at all (regardless of when they initially planned on using it) - the only way to never have it "accidentally" scan other content is for it to not exist locally at all. Imagine Microsoft Defender (which is enabled by default on 99%+ of Windows machines) suddenly starts scanning all your local content against some opaque government-provided databases of "bad" hashes. But they pinky swear they won't ever report their findings unless you upload your files to OneDrive. Would you trust them?
- uoaei 3y agoIt is always the implication when people point out false dichotomies that there are more than two options. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader. Flex those critical thinking skills.
- pseudalopex 3y agoApple introduced optional end to end encryption for photos after withdrawing the on device scanning plan. Do you claim a back door?