So, you want child pornographers to be able to opt out for 99$?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Privacy Chief Explains 'Built-in' Privacy Protections in Child Safety Features Amid User Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I suppose this "Threshold" is to prevent anything accidentally or unintentionally downloaded?
Has this been posted yet...
Apple, you took a wrong turn last week....
Apple, you took a wrong turn last week....
If you did take a naked selfie, it wouldn’t likely be on a known list of photos to be in the list.
Ownership does not just equal possession. It also equals control. Yes, we give up some control by allowing Apple to put iOS on the device and agreeing to their terms. Historically they have respected the ability for users who own their devices to have some control over them. Again, this is taking a step that disrespects that dynamic.
This appears to be a philosophical difference in what you and I (and others) think of as ownership. So we'll likely have to disagree on this... even though I'm right, historically speaking anyway.
I agree, that article I linked needed to source their info, but historically they've been pretty good about accurate reporting. I'll look for a better source when I have more time later.
"...iCloud is going to be more private in this regard." I guess that's technically correct, but you're making the assumption that they're going to do a single, one time blanket CSAM scan of all existing iCloud photos and then never hash scan them again... even when the CSAM database is updated with new hashes? Multiple scans seem inevitable to make this whole thing worthwhile in helping cut down on CSAM.
It's a technical workaround, for a small privacy benefit that gives them privacy bragging rights, while forcing me to allow them to use my device to accomplish it.
And since it's an opt-out feature for criminals, honestly it's feeling more and more futile anyway, and I'm surprised they're getting such high praise from organizations like the NCMEC.
Let me preface where I stand before I ask my questions.Ownership does not just equal possession. It also equals control. Yes, we give up some control by allowing Apple to put iOS on the device and agreeing to their terms. Historically they have respected the ability for users who own their devices to have some control over them. Again, this is taking a step that disrespects that dynamic.
This appears to be a philosophical difference in what you and I (and others) think of as ownership. So we'll likely have to disagree on this... even though I'm right, historically speaking anyway.
I agree, that article I linked needed to source their info, but historically they've been pretty good about accurate reporting. I'll look for a better source when I have more time later.
"...iCloud is going to be more private in this regard." I guess that's technically correct, but you're making the assumption that they're going to do a single, one time blanket CSAM scan of all existing iCloud photos and then never hash scan them again... even when the CSAM database is updated with new hashes? Multiple scans seem inevitable to make this whole thing worthwhile in helping cut down on CSAM.
It's a technical workaround, for a small privacy benefit that gives them privacy bragging rights, while forcing me to allow them to use my device to accomplish it.
And since it's an opt-out feature for criminals, honestly it's feeling more and more futile anyway, and I'm surprised they're getting such high praise from organizations like the NCMEC.
1) Anyone who says "I don't do anything illegal so I don't care" doesn't understand history nor the dangers of giving up rights
2) I think it would be honest to say that most people never realized there was such a thing as CSAM scanning in the cloud, me included. Never crossed my mind, I've been blessed to never have been scarred by that. But there is a certain level of shock to people that their perception of current privacy wasn't reality.
3) CP is a HUGE problem, bigger than people think, and our privacy and rights are always in balance with our security.
From a technical point of view, I don't have a problem with what Apple is doing. I don't see it as being a slippery slope, only because Apple (and others) could always get into our phones. We have trusted them for over a decade that they wouldn't do it. Remember Apple getting in trouble for dropping the U2 song on people's phones? I see it much the same way, there is a creepy feeling about it, but logically there is no difference. I think both can be true and we are ok with living with some grey here.
So my questions are these:
1) Would you be ok with a toggle in settings that turned off CSAM scanning, but it would be required to be turned on for iCloud photos? For example, you go to turn on iCloud photos and it tells you have to turn on CSAM scan?
2) If Apple came out soon saying "Now that we are scanning client side and don't need to do it server side, we are excited to announce end-to-end encryption on iCloud" would that be worth it?
I'm hoping to have a real dialogue with someone, thanks
Ownership does not just equal possession. It also equals control. Yes, we give up some control by allowing Apple to put iOS on the device and agreeing to their terms. Historically they have respected the ability for users who own their devices to have some control over them. Again, this is taking a step that disrespects that dynamic.
This appears to be a philosophical difference in what you and I (and others) think of as ownership. So we'll likely have to disagree on this... even though I'm right, historically speaking anyway.
I agree, that article I linked needed to source their info, but historically they've been pretty good about accurate reporting. I'll look for a better source when I have more time later.
"...iCloud is going to be more private in this regard." I guess that's technically correct, but you're making the assumption that they're going to do a single, one time blanket CSAM scan of all existing iCloud photos and then never hash scan them again... even when the CSAM database is updated with new hashes? Multiple scans seem inevitable to make this whole thing worthwhile in helping cut down on CSAM.
It's a technical workaround, for a small privacy benefit that gives them privacy bragging rights, while forcing me to allow them to use my device to accomplish it.
And since it's an opt-out feature for criminals, honestly it's feeling more and more futile anyway, and I'm surprised they're getting such high praise from organizations like the NCMEC.
Well, I disagree that ownership of a device = control over the software portion, though of course Apple DOES grant users much control, including NOT using iCloud for photos, which disables any scanning process.
Yes, if you do find a primary source for that claim about Apple continuing to scan photos in the cloud, please link it. Because I'm sure the primary source explains it better than someone else's interpretation of it, and I'm sure the reality doesn't contradict what Apple has said here, because of course that wouldn't make any sense (and Apple's not stupid).
And again, Apple's goal here is NOT to prevent CSAM from being stored on the device (that WOULD require a gross breach of privacy); it's to prevent it from being uploaded and distributed on their servers. But since they obviously don't know who is going to do that, everyone's photos get scanned. So this makes things much more private for innocent people. And criminals "opting out" (i.e. disabling iCloud photo storage) means they won't be able to use iCloud to distribute their filth. It's not like they get to opt out and continue to use the service. Obviously they have other ways of distributing CSAM which of course Apple has no control over, but iCloud won't be one of them.
All my photos are synced on my local NAS. Sure its a little less user friendly at times but my privacy is worth it. The iMessage thing is still an issue. No doubt this will expand to other categories to flag someone for, not just for sexual content. Whatever an administration feels is a threat at the time?
When are the neuro implants from Apple coming? When you have “wrongthink” it’ll report you.
When are the neuro implants from Apple coming? When you have “wrongthink” it’ll report you.
Chaser: You are always breaking some law of some kind.
Last edited:
Well, I don't Twit and I don't FaceBorg. I don't use Google as a search engine and I don't have a Google login. I block trackers of all kinds. No Instagram, either. And, lest you think I'm some sort of Luddite, I've been on the Internet since before it was *called* the Internet (i.e. back in the CSNet/NSFNet days).
There are already regimes who would eagerly seek to expand and exploit this scanning capability. Some of them are extremely lucrative markets for Apple. This "feature" is a potential danger to dissidents, human rights activists, and journalists whether or not it's only used in very restricted and "benign" ways in the US.
If you wait for a hypothetical regime (here or abroad) to exploit this, it will already be too late.
To clarify, the toggle would disable CSAM scanning on device, but it would be required to be turned on solely in the cloud - I think that's what you're asking? If so, then 100% yes.
This is the ultimate question, right? Because that's what a lot of people think they're ultimately going for here. If I'm being 100% honest, I'm still a little torn on this. I've already accepted the lack of privacy in the "cloud" (any one, not just iCloud). Those aren't my servers, I'm "renting" space on them, so to speak.
I have not yet accepted the idea of my device being utilized for this scanning system. I'm not renting my device. This whole thing blurs the lines between the cloud and local storage.
Because of that, right now I'm leaning towards saying it would not be worth it. At that point they would get to claim full E2EE of iCloud, and yet they've also opened up a methodology that allows E2EE data to be tracked/scanned/reported to authorities, therefore making one of the primary "perks" of E2EE less of a perk. I have nothing to hide, but it's the principle of the thing for me.
I'm all for a real dialogue!
Right, I agree with that, but if they want to keep users happy, they have to respect that dynamic.
See, I'm with you on the general thought here. But it's the part about submitting everybody to the same process to prevent a few from uploading nefarious things to iCloud - that's what I have a problem with. And yes, I know there are examples of this in every day life that we have to deal with. But none of those examples involve stepping into my personal property, so to speak (I realize that analogy isn't perfect either).
"...it's to prevent it from being uploaded and distributed on their servers." - The CSAM is getting uploaded to their servers no matter what. It's being "caught", so to speak, on the device, but it's still going to end up on their servers and then dealt with. That process can be done server-side without needing my device to do it, and the CSAM will spend the exact same amount of time on their servers before being flagged/reported/etc.
Putting everyone in prison would reduce all crime by 100%. Would that be worth it?
I'm glad to have at least one answer, that the hash database is going to be distributed within IOS itself. But how big is it?
Is it already within the IOS 15 public betas?
The reason I ask: the camera on my phone can take 100s of pictures in no time. I assume the producers of badness can also take lots of pictures, and therefore that means there will be a huge quantity of hashes in the database, no?
Is it already within the IOS 15 public betas?
The reason I ask: the camera on my phone can take 100s of pictures in no time. I assume the producers of badness can also take lots of pictures, and therefore that means there will be a huge quantity of hashes in the database, no?
As far as I'm aware, Apple has been scanning email in the cloud, not photos. I believe that that is probably where the 265 reports that Apple filed last year came from.
It doesn't violate the 4th Amendment because it's a private party (Apple) doing the search. The Bill of Rights, unfortunately, only protects you from the government. Once Apple is in possession of the information, they're perfectly free to give it to the authorities. I'm sure the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy will be amended to incorporate consent to rifle through your data and hand over any interesting tidbits, just to be sure.
Okay, put everyone in solitary confinement. Problem solved
.Or, as Ben Franklin put it: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Geez. "And" is a conjunction, not a subject. You don't start sentences with conjunctions. Wow, what has happened to our spoken language these past 10 years? Are copywriters that dang lazy or ignorant when to detect someone speaking a run-on sentence? Can people no longer form coherent sentences?
Why pay a subscription for that? If you want to be better secured, keep iCloud photo, iCloud email, iCloud backup, and iMessage in the cloud turned off. The same goes for Apple Notes, and any other third party app that you feel holds personal information you don't want accessed by Apple.
Apple made 265 CSAM reports last year. Guess where that came from...iCloud email.
Last edited:
You are dreaming if you think the new phones won't come with iOS 15.
I think they ARE respecting that dynamic. Again, every single user has the choice to disable iCloud for photos. Isn't that control?
Oh, it's not a "few" people attempting to upload CSAM. It's a pandemic and has been for a long time. Believe me, Apple (and other cloud services) would not be spending all these resources and time on CSAM detection if it were some small problem.
Yes, it will be on their servers, but in effect "quarantined" for review and not able to be distributed. As for the "exact same amount of time" - I don't know. Was the server-side scan happening in real time as the photos were uploaded or just periodically? In any case, the point of this change isn't to reduce time on server or anything but to rather to continue to do what they've always been doing in a more private manner. That's it! I don't think Apple ever claimed that the method is more effective when done on the device itself - just more private.
Just FYI:
Is it ever okay to start a sentence with 'and'?
FANBOYS might not get you far
www.merriam-webster.com
Can You Start a Sentence with a Conjunction?
There is nothing wrong with starting sentences with “and,” “but,” or other similar conjunctions. You may, however, encounter people who mistakenly believe that starting a…
Apple can't get into our phones. That was the point of FBI case with the San Bernardino shooter.
Apple didn't put the U2 album on our phones. They server-side added it to the iTunes accounts as a credit/entitlement. Yes that logic and data ultimately synchronized to the iTunes app on the phones, but that was the same channel as if you bought an album via iTunes. It was just a $0 purchase.
In this CSAM situation, Apple still isn't doing anything. It's being done client side, on-device. Apple isn't scanning our photos (headlines have it wrong, but that's what generates the clicks and ad impressions on the news sites; "truth" is not what it once meant with journalists and news wires).