No. Because Apple is only scanning it when you try to send it to their servers. They can't scan it on the server side because they promised you the data would be encrypted and they would never be able to see it for themselves.
Please. If you open your iCloud photos in a browser, it's unencrypted.
About 30 years. I've been programming professionally since before I graduated from highschool. How long have you been doing it?
Yes, AFTER you have entered your password. They can't do it without that.
Apple can't decrypt your stuff without your credentials.
The keychain is encrypted on Apple's servers and still needs your master password to decrypt.
I have been a systems administrator for 30+ years.
Are all your user's files encrypted?
Do you honestly know for a fact that they can? Maybe they can by forcing a reset as you say, I'm not sure.
Marvin, I've ready your other posts. You and I have similar backgrounds; both developers for a long time, a lot of systems stuff.
That can work on some systems. Do you know if an iCloud email address can be changed prior to gaining access to that account like you suggest?
Jesus. Even when you're pointed to the proof, you still deny it.
And you're correct. In its current description, it's fine. Scan the people's phones before it uploads to iCloud and hash it against a database. In the land of unicorns and rainbows, that would be a great solution.
Then let's stop the scaremongering about what hasn't been done, as if this has somehow created that opportunity where it didn't exist before. That isn't the case, the technology required for some forced mass surveillance was not developed by Apple for this feature. It has existed since it has been possible to compare image hashes with computers, before Apple decided to use it to protect children from abuse.
It's not a big leap from iOS 14 (not having this feature) to that. Nothing about government forcing their hand has anything to do with this feature. Some government could demand that regardless of Apple implementing what they have so far. I.e. some government could come around and demand that they do exactly what they have proposed to do - see, it makes no difference.
No. Because the misuse does not require this as a first step. It can be done all together if this feature wasn't already there. This feature doesn't change things.
As you agreed, "In its current description, it's fine." In some other form it is something else. This "fine" feature hasn't suddenly enabled some other form that we all agree is a "bad idea". That bad idea feature was always possible before this feature. The argument that this is a step closer doesn't hold up. If some big bad government has to take two steps instead of one to violate your rights, they will.
Guess you haven't seen the latest news. There's no longer any "almost certainly."
I started with hand-coding 8080 machine language, in octal, no less, in 1975.
Disagree. On-device scanning is not and never will be "fine," in my view. Not for any reason or purpose, by anybody. Ever.
And that's kind of my point (see my previous post). This is a DECISION by apple. Not a requirement. In fact, the law that they are using to justify this move specifically states...(and I quote)
Perhaps I haven't. Do you have a link? I did a quick search and didn't find anything pointing to Apple making this statement because some security researchers forced their hand.
It's not difficult because it has already been done. The hard part has been figured out. There are neural network models available for this stuff and tools to train on newer data sets. The software would be built on decades of research at this point. It's not difficult with the tools we have these days for a team of professionals to implement this feature.
Depends a lot on the product and the team. But I think you are reading in a lot more to my "isn't difficult" statement. It's a feature that would be straight-forward for Apple engineers, or any other professionals, to code. I didn't say it was something you would code over your lunch-hour and send out the door.
I'm not sure if you really mean "not for any reason or purpose." I don't recall the uproar over being able to search for pictures by content like "dog" ... You know, all the image recognition stuff that is done by scanning the images on the phone in a much more intrusive manner than what Apple would do in this case.
That is about the most ludicrous argument I've seen in defense of Apple's privacy invasion plans so far. Well done!
If you refuse to read Apple's own report as I suggested and instead make false assumptions based on a generalized statement on a website, here:
Yet, you cannot explain why. Instead you make a dumb statement.
Oh, the irony... You know what they say about assumptions, right?
Oh... I dunno... I guess I'd have to ask what would be the point in hacking such a thing? To mis-classify peoples' photos for them? "Oh no! I wanted to see my photos of plants and instead I got trains! I must've been hacked!" To mine their data for how many photos they take of cats vs. dogs vs. plants vs. buildings vs. people vs. whatever?
The difference is one system is employed for the end-user's benefit. To categorize photos for the owner of the device. The other is used to spy upon the user on "their own" device. In the one system there's been no suggestion the results would be exported to third parties--or even to Apple, itself, for review. The other clearly does that.
I have no doubt one or more lawsuits will be forthcoming once iOS 15 is released and this feature goes live. Forum member @Playfoot noted in one of his posts on the subject, that a court ruled that an entity acting in the same fashion as Apple was held to be an agent of the state. I don't recall the case but, maybe he will repost or link to the information he found.
law.justia.com
I say again....
