3 ms·

Sigh. Devolving a discussion into meta commentary about debating techniques is not an interesting debating technique either. There isn't only one other alterna

Sigh. Devolving a discussion into meta commentary about debating techniques is not an interesting debating technique either. There isn't only one other alternative to the Apple ecosystem, I was asking an actual question. It wasn't a rhetorical question. But even if it was, are you seriously saying that rhetorical questions are a point of criticism in persuasive writing? Seriously? Then you want to take issue with "Nobody cares" as though it was intended to be literal rather than idiomatic. For the record I was being idiomatic. I hope this clarifies things. As for your alternative interpretation of what went down in the great Apple CSAM scanning controversy, none of what you said strictly conflicts with what I said. The core facts aren't in dispute, but I accept that people interpreted motives differently. Do you seriously think Apple would have made a big song and dance about their proposal around CSAM scanning if the intent was to implement it regardless? (Apologies for the rhetorical question.) Obviously they wouldn't have. They would have just subtly changed the license terms and implemented it without telling anyone. It's amazing how quickly people forget why Apple wanted to implement the initial fingerprinting stage on-device, rather than in the cloud as all their major competitors had already done. Disdain for users' privacy, really? Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole point of doing it on device was, as I'm sure you remember, protecting privacy by having industry standard scanning while remaining compatible with end-to-end encryption.

fauigerzigerk 3y ago
>Do you seriously think Apple would have made a big song and dance about their proposal around CSAM scanning if the intent was to implement it regardless? I think the reason why people are angry at Apple in spite of their climbdown is because Apple did a lot of damage announcing it the way they did. Far from "inviting a debate" on how or whether this can be done in a safe and privacy friendly way, they made an announcement explaining exactly what they were going to do and how it was going to work. The message was received loud and clear by politicians who are up against critics disputing the technical feasibility of surveilling the entire population in a safe and privacy friendly way. Apple has dealt a hammer blow to privacy advocates. The effects of Apple's announcement have been percolating through parliaments and law enforcement agencies all over the world ever since. Add to that the effects of Apple's side-loading ban, which is hands complete control over what software people can and cannot install to authoritarian rulers across the planet, their decision to hand over Chinese iCloud operations (including encryption keys) to a state owned company, and their willingness to make questionable security claims in defense of their own business model. The picture that emerges is not pretty. At the same time, Apple provides privacy protections to hundereds of millions of people who would not otherwise have them - realistically speaking. If mobile OS competition was between Google, Microsoft and Samsung, there would not be a setting to blanket disable all tracking requests. Markets often end up in an equilibrium where certain choices simply don't exist. Regulating this space without doing more harm than good is very difficult. We're going to have to wait and see whether the EU has done a good job this time.

fauigerzigerk 3y ago

>Do you seriously think Apple would have made a big song and dance about their proposal around CSAM scanning if the intent was to implement it regardless? I think the reason why people are angry at Apple in spite of their climbdown is because Apple did a lot of damage announcing it the way they did. Far from "inviting a debate" on how or whether this can be done in a safe and privacy friendly way, they made an announcement explaining exactly what they were going to do and how it was going to work. The message was received loud and clear by politicians who are up against critics disputing the technical feasibility of surveilling the entire population in a safe and privacy friendly way. Apple has dealt a hammer blow to privacy advocates. The effects of Apple's announcement have been percolating through parliaments and law enforcement agencies all over the world ever since. Add to that the effects of Apple's side-loading ban, which is hands complete control over what software people can and cannot install to authoritarian rulers across the planet, their decision to hand over Chinese iCloud operations (including encryption keys) to a state owned company, and their willingness to make questionable security claims in defense of their own business model. The picture that emerges is not pretty. At the same time, Apple provides privacy protections to hundereds of millions of people who would not otherwise have them - realistically speaking. If mobile OS competition was between Google, Microsoft and Samsung, there would not be a setting to blanket disable all tracking requests. Markets often end up in an equilibrium where certain choices simply don't exist. Regulating this space without doing more harm than good is very difficult. We're going to have to wait and see whether the EU has done a good job this time.