4 ms·

The right call is to provide the feature and let users opt-in. Apple knows this is bad, they've directly witnessed the backlash to OCSP, lawful intercept and cl

The right call is to provide the feature and let users opt-in. Apple knows this is bad, they've directly witnessed the backlash to OCSP, lawful intercept and client-side-scanning. There is no world in which they did not realize the problem and decided to enable it by default anyways knowing full-well that users aren't comfortable with this. People won't trust homomorphic encryption, entropy seeding or relaying when none of it is transparent and all of it is enabled in an OTA update. > This is what a good privacy story looks like. This is what a coverup looks like. Good privacy stories never force third-party services on a user, period. When you see that many puppets on stage in one security theater, it's only natural for things to feel off.

oneplane 2y ago
It's not that binary. Nobody is forcing anything, you can not buy a phone, you can not use the internet. Heck, you can even not install any updates! What is happening, is that people make tradeoffs, and decide to what degree they trust who and what they interact with. Plenty of people might just 'go with the flow', but putting what Apple did here in the same bucket as what for example Microsoft or Google does is a gross misrepresentation. Present it all as equals just kills the discussion, and doesn't inform anyone to a better degree. When you want to take part in an interconnected network, you cannot do that on your own, and you will have to trust other parties to some degree. This includes things that might 'feel' like you can judge them (like your browser used to access HN right here), but you actually can't unless you understand the entire codebase of your OS and Browser, all the firmware on the I/O paths, and the silicon it all runs on. So you make a choice, which as you are reading this, is apparently that you trust this entire chain enough to take part in it. It would be reasonable to make this optional (as in, opt-in), but the problem is that you end up asking a user for a ton of "do you want this" questions, almost every upgrade and install cycle, which is not what they want (we have had this since Mavericks and Vista, people were not happy). So if you can engineer a feature to be as privacy-centric yet automated as possible, it's a win for everyone.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > What is happening, is that people make tradeoffs, and decide to what degree they trust who and what they interact with. People aren't making tradeoffs - that's the problem. Apple is making the tradeoffs for them, and then retroactively asking their users "is this okay?" Users shouldn't need to buy a new phone to circumevent arbitrary restrictions on the hardware that is their legal property. If America had functional consumer protections, Apple would have been reprimanded harder than their smackdowns in the EU.
  - oneplane 2y ago
    People make plenty of tradeoffs. Most people trade most of their attention/time for things that are not related to thinking about technical details, legal issues or privacy concerns. None of this exists in their minds. Maybe the fact that they implicitly made this tradeoff isn't even something they are aware of. As for vectorised and noise-protected PCC, sure, they might have an opinion about that, but people rarely are informed enough to think about it, let alone gain the insight to make a judgment about it at all.
  - cortesoft 2y ago
    They can just not enable the feature if they don't want this?
    - latexr 2y ago
      The feature is enabled by default. That’s the only reason we’re having this discussion at all.
- gigel82 2y ago
  I don't want my photos to take part in any network; never asked for it, never expected it to happen. I never used iCloud or other commercial cloud providers. This is just forceful data extraction by Apple, absolutely egregious behavior.
  - oneplane 2y ago
latexr 2y ago
> This is what a coverup looks like. That’s starting to veer into unreasonable levels of conspiracy theory. There’s nothing to “cover up”, the feature has an off switch right in the Settings and a public document explaining how it works. It should not be on by default but that’s not a reason to immediately assume bad faith. Even the author of the article is concerned more about bugs than intentions.
- CapcomGo 2y ago
  Sure it is. This isn't a feature or setting that users check often or ever. Now, their data is being sent without their permission or knowledge.
  - latexr 2y ago
    Which is wrong but doesn’t make it a coverup, which by definition assumes trying to hide evidence of wrongdoing.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      It is a coverup. Apple is overtly and completely aware of the optics surrounding photo scanning - they know that an opt-in scheme cannot work as they found out previously. Since they cannot convince users to enable this feature in good-faith, they are resorting to subterfuge. We know that Apple is vehement about pushing client-side scanning on users that do not want it, I do not believe for a second that this was a mistake or unintended behavior. If this was a bug then it would have been hotfixed immediately to prevent the unintended behavior from reaching any more phones than it already had.
      - threeseed 2y ago
        > they are resorting to subterfuge This is illogical. If Apple wanted to engage in subterfuge they would simply compromise the OS. When a company controls the entire stack either you trust everything they do. Or nothing.
threeseed 2y ago
> This is what a coverup looks like This is a dumb take. They literally own the entire stack Photos runs on. If they really wanted to do a coverup we would never know about it.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Why wouldn't this mistake be addressed in a security hotfix then? Apple has to pick a lane - this is either intended behavior being enabled against user's wishes, or unintended behavior that compromises the security and privacy of iPhone owners.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Or option (c). This is a useful, harmless feature that does not comprise security or privacy in any way.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      If it's a useful, harmless feature, then let users opt-in. You'd think Apple would have learned their lesson after a decade of people bitching about U2 being secreted-in to their iTunes library, but apparently not. Users are smart enough to decide for themselves. Let them.
      - kalleboo 2y ago
        All I've seen this year is people complaining about all the security dialogs Apple are throwing at them when they upgrade macOS ARE YOU SURE ARE YOU SURE ARE YOU SURE

oneplane 2y ago

It's not that binary. Nobody is forcing anything, you can not buy a phone, you can not use the internet. Heck, you can even not install any updates! What is happening, is that people make tradeoffs, and decide to what degree they trust who and what they interact with. Plenty of people might just 'go with the flow', but putting what Apple did here in the same bucket as what for example Microsoft or Google does is a gross misrepresentation. Present it all as equals just kills the discussion, and doesn't inform anyone to a better degree. When you want to take part in an interconnected network, you cannot do that on your own, and you will have to trust other parties to some degree. This includes things that might 'feel' like you can judge them (like your browser used to access HN right here), but you actually can't unless you understand the entire codebase of your OS and Browser, all the firmware on the I/O paths, and the silicon it all runs on. So you make a choice, which as you are reading this, is apparently that you trust this entire chain enough to take part in it. It would be reasonable to make this optional (as in, opt-in), but the problem is that you end up asking a user for a ton of "do you want this" questions, almost every upgrade and install cycle, which is not what they want (we have had this since Mavericks and Vista, people were not happy). So if you can engineer a feature to be as privacy-centric yet automated as possible, it's a win for everyone.

talldayo 2y ago
> What is happening, is that people make tradeoffs, and decide to what degree they trust who and what they interact with. People aren't making tradeoffs - that's the problem. Apple is making the tradeoffs for them, and then retroactively asking their users "is this okay?" Users shouldn't need to buy a new phone to circumevent arbitrary restrictions on the hardware that is their legal property. If America had functional consumer protections, Apple would have been reprimanded harder than their smackdowns in the EU.
- oneplane 2y ago
  People make plenty of tradeoffs. Most people trade most of their attention/time for things that are not related to thinking about technical details, legal issues or privacy concerns. None of this exists in their minds. Maybe the fact that they implicitly made this tradeoff isn't even something they are aware of. As for vectorised and noise-protected PCC, sure, they might have an opinion about that, but people rarely are informed enough to think about it, let alone gain the insight to make a judgment about it at all.
- cortesoft 2y ago
  They can just not enable the feature if they don't want this?
  - latexr 2y ago
    The feature is enabled by default. That’s the only reason we’re having this discussion at all.
gigel82 2y ago
I don't want my photos to take part in any network; never asked for it, never expected it to happen. I never used iCloud or other commercial cloud providers. This is just forceful data extraction by Apple, absolutely egregious behavior.
- oneplane 2y ago

latexr 2y ago

> This is what a coverup looks like. That’s starting to veer into unreasonable levels of conspiracy theory. There’s nothing to “cover up”, the feature has an off switch right in the Settings and a public document explaining how it works. It should not be on by default but that’s not a reason to immediately assume bad faith. Even the author of the article is concerned more about bugs than intentions.

CapcomGo 2y ago
Sure it is. This isn't a feature or setting that users check often or ever. Now, their data is being sent without their permission or knowledge.
- latexr 2y ago
  Which is wrong but doesn’t make it a coverup, which by definition assumes trying to hide evidence of wrongdoing.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    It is a coverup. Apple is overtly and completely aware of the optics surrounding photo scanning - they know that an opt-in scheme cannot work as they found out previously. Since they cannot convince users to enable this feature in good-faith, they are resorting to subterfuge. We know that Apple is vehement about pushing client-side scanning on users that do not want it, I do not believe for a second that this was a mistake or unintended behavior. If this was a bug then it would have been hotfixed immediately to prevent the unintended behavior from reaching any more phones than it already had.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      > they are resorting to subterfuge This is illogical. If Apple wanted to engage in subterfuge they would simply compromise the OS. When a company controls the entire stack either you trust everything they do. Or nothing.

threeseed 2y ago

> This is what a coverup looks like This is a dumb take. They literally own the entire stack Photos runs on. If they really wanted to do a coverup we would never know about it.

talldayo 2y ago
Why wouldn't this mistake be addressed in a security hotfix then? Apple has to pick a lane - this is either intended behavior being enabled against user's wishes, or unintended behavior that compromises the security and privacy of iPhone owners.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Or option (c). This is a useful, harmless feature that does not comprise security or privacy in any way.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    If it's a useful, harmless feature, then let users opt-in. You'd think Apple would have learned their lesson after a decade of people bitching about U2 being secreted-in to their iTunes library, but apparently not. Users are smart enough to decide for themselves. Let them.
    - kalleboo 2y ago
      All I've seen this year is people complaining about all the security dialogs Apple are throwing at them when they upgrade macOS ARE YOU SURE ARE YOU SURE ARE YOU SURE