4 ms·
> …so they made a business decision to respect peoples privacy (and their bottom line at that). For the record, Apple abandoned this on-device technique becaus
by CharlesW 2y ago
> …so they made a business decision to respect peoples privacy (and their bottom line at that).
For the record, Apple abandoned this on-device technique because of bad press, even though it would've been more privacy-preserving than the in-cloud scanning that virtually all image hosts do today.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago> even though it would've been more privacy-preserving than the in-cloud scanning that virtually all image hosts do today You can opt out of in-cloud scanning by not using the cloud, or selecting a different service.
- CharlesW 2y agoThat would have still been true, since photos not destined for iCloud Photos were not scanned.
- JoshTriplett 2y agoThere is no fundamental property of the technology that ensures that. Once the capability exists, how long do you think that'd stay true?
- CharlesW 2y agoIt exists now, since the tech was repurposed for Apple’s Communication Safety (scanning for all nudity, not just CSAM): https://www.apple.com/child-safety/ https://www.apple.com/child-safety/ How do you validate that your OS, your apps, and other actors in your image/video processing and storage supply chains aren't doing surreptitious CSAM scanning? I have no idea. All I know is that Apple is being sued for not doing it.
- palata 2y ago> All I know is that Apple is being sued for not doing it. Which doesn't make sense. > How do you validate that your OS, your apps, and other actors in your image/video processing and storage supply chains aren't doing [...] Because you don't know that your neighbour deals drugs does not make it legal.
- rangestransform 2y agoHow about the device I own never do anything, ever to incriminate me In fact, if I own a device, it should by default do everything legal to obstruct law enforcement efforts against me because I own it and it should serve me