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 Remains Committed to Launching New Child Safety Features Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If how the technology works isn’t the point then what exactly is the point, other than feigned offence by people not even bothering to learn what it is they think is offending them?
Unlike most other actors in this sphere (Google, Facebook, etc.) Apple is choosing not to scan all of your photos on their servers (scanning is done on your device and only if you are uploading to iCloud). Unlike these same actors Apple WILL NOT be flagging Grandma bathing the grandchildren as porn. And unlike so many posters are posting this is not easily open to exploitation by third parties. Even if someone were to sneak politically motivated hashtags into the algorithm that would be discovered in the human intervention stage of the process.
What seems to be offending most people is the false statements they are reading on the internet (and MacRumors is a HUGE problem here as they have become inexcusably clickbait) rather than the reality. If the concern is that Apple is secretly going to exploit this for others then what has changed? If you honestly believe that is Apple’s intention to do this then this announcement changes nothing.
Folks, Apple has come up with a scanning technique that is far less invasive than what pretty much all others have been doing for more than a decade. This is a good thing. Check out of the why and how in Rene Ritchie’s explanation on YouTube.
Last edited:
This one is truly insidious. I sort of subscribed to this myself, even though I have always used a wild mix of manufacturers and operating systems. And it is common "wisdom" on the web - whenever there is computer talk in the comment sections, even on regular, non-tech sites, everyone knows Apple is expensive, maybe too expensive, but they protect privacy, unlike Google.
Traditionally there was not much the pro-Android side could say to counter the privacy argument, as Google does not talk much about privacy. So it turned into "Google = freedom of choices + cheaper + bad privacy" versus "Apple = walled garden + premium + great privacy". I wonder if this will change now. The CSAM-check is a nasty piece of PR, and there is a good chance its perception will linger on as "your iPhone is snooping in your private stuff because it suspects you are a sex predator." Even if the technical explanation is a bit more involved than that, details do not last long in the general public.
🤣 🤣 what's next ? To check it out on Apple's marketing material???
Which Linux phone did you order? I've been looking at getting one also. I've looked at the Pinephone. Any recommendations? The battery on my Keyone doesn't last very long anymore lol. Yes, I have a Blackberry lol. The keyboard on my Passport was awesome to type on.
Tony is that you? for the flip 360... and you actually believe yourself... look at you, we went from this shouldn't be done at all, to now it's the best solution? Good one Duane.
I don’t think you read any, or much, of the material on how it works. Which I would like to mirror the comment of the person you are addressing. Actually take some time to read how it works. Then take some time to internalize it and find out specifically what is flawed with it and why you are uncomfortable with it. I have my concerns as well but historically Apple has done exactly what they said they would do when it comes to their policies and privacy. This one was a pretty big shock to me as well since it seems to go against their privacy claims. So I took some time to educate myself.
They created a system that compares hashes and not photos. Its all done on your phone. Coupons are involved and not the photos. Thresholds have to be met. Chances of the mistake are 1 in 1 trillion in a year and even with that threshold Apple still requires a human review of the ones that did exceed the threshold before it even goes off to any organization.
That means all of those systems have to fail for it to not work. Since it is all done device side, and not server side, it is much more likely, and probably easier, for an corrupt organization or government to just take your phone and tell you that you have to unlock it. Think about that 1 in 1 trillion is a stupid high number. Before human review.
Suppose a court or government tries to force Apple to make a system to do otherwise. Historically they have always fought that and did so publicly.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be discussion around it. I want people to punch holes in it because I want the system to be robust, secure, and accomplish what they say its intended to do. Apple is big tech and they sometimes operate like other big companies. Other times, and generally around privacy, they have not operated like big tech and have stood their ground.
Your concerns are warranted and deserve to be addressed. However your arguments are speculative and uninformed.
You don't consider client side scanning invasive. Many do. Even if it ultimately brings more iCloud privacy, it brings less client side privacy - slightly less, and with numerous hurdles and checks and balances in place - but less regardless.
Edit: Also, you couldn't be more right about the clickbait here and elsewhere... it's definitely hindering rational discussions about this topic.
Edit 2: I read Rene's article, and it's well thought out, but even he acknowledges some of these same concerns as valid.
Last edited:
Yes but if it happens to you it will be 100% for you.
Anyway this 1 in a trillion that people keep repeating is not the problem but the actual software installed on our devices and future uses of it.
On a second note, Apple was never famous about always delivering properly written software so please allow many of us to challenge the number that Apple chose to release.
I am not a developer but are you claiming that all those tech experts that express concerns do not know what they are talking about? Don't you think we should carefully listen to them?
Do it for the children is the battle cry of busybodies destroying the lives of everyone everywhere.
hey Apple,I'm not a terrorist or a pedo,why should my devices that I payed for and own be continuously searched?
guilty until proven innocent? WTF!?
what a horrible bullying company Apple is becoming..literally the exact opposite of what they were famous for..from the biggest user privacy supporter company to the LEAST.
this is unprecedented breach of user privacy..they have the right to search the content that are uploaded to their servers but on people's devices? no way.
this is unbelievable.
guilty until proven innocent? WTF!?
what a horrible bullying company Apple is becoming..literally the exact opposite of what they were famous for..from the biggest user privacy supporter company to the LEAST.
this is unprecedented breach of user privacy..they have the right to search the content that are uploaded to their servers but on people's devices? no way.
this is unbelievable.
I don‘t care how “less intrusive“ it is. Its intrusive, that‘s all one needs to know. It spyware. Yes it is, that is its purpose. Its absolutely irrelevant what fancy cryptography it is using.
It should not exist in the first place
So you have watched Rene Ritchie’s explanation and found it to be inaccurate or untrue? Please share, I would like to learn more. Or are you offended by the facts presented because you would rather live in the conspiracy and revel in your imaginary offence?
It literally does NOT matter how Apple is searching for these photos. I don’t care if they are using a hash-matching algorithm, blood hounds, or black magic. The method of search is literally irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that matters is a search is taking place, it’s happening on my private property, and there is no warrant for the search.
Apple can do all the searching they want on their own servers. But once they install surveillance technology into my PERSONAL device, then my device is no longer personal. It’s about the principal of it.
End on story.
Yeah YouTube turns a blind eye to explicit music and music videos. We put a parental advisory sticker on and censored some of the words, but what's seen in the video is totally appropriate for children.
Rather than just reacting based on no facts, get informed. You might be surprised by what you learn. Your absolutist statement is clearly in denial of how technology works. Check out the alternatives other tech companies are doing before condemning Apple’s approach. I would also encourage you to learn more about the problem that all companies are trying to resolve.
I have to wonder how many people who are reacting so strongly to what Apple is doing also use Facebook, Google, etc. and are oblivious to the the truly invasive techniques those companies use to tackle the problem. People, get informed.
Well I have and commented, which was deleted. He mentions: iOS is a global operating system & "Apple would say no to governments as much as last week and last month". however in Russia:
Apple forced to offer Russian iPhone users local apps at setup thanks to new law
Apple forced to offer Russian iPhone users local apps at setup thanks to new law
‘In compliance with Russian legal requirements, continue to view available apps to download.’
www.theverge.com
So they already give in to government pressure in Russia (and China), what is next: Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Brunei?
Again, please get informed regarding the problem that Apple is trying to resolve and how they are doing it. Or do not back up your photos to iCloud and the problem is solved. Use Google Drive, One Drive, Dropbox, etc. and ignore the real invasions of privacy happening there.
Sorry, what is your point? What have local apps have to do with this discussion? There is a HUGE difference between installing third party apps and rewriting iOS for each individual country. And again, if you believe Apple would do this, what has changed?Well I have and commented, which was deleted. He mentions: iOS is a global operating system & "Apple would say no to governments as much as last week and last month". however in Russia:
Apple forced to offer Russian iPhone users local apps at setup thanks to new law
"iPhones purchased in Russia now show a list of Russian-made apps at startup, part of the standard iPhone setup" process, and “Apple has been willing to make changes in apparent attempts to comply with Russia’s local laws in the past, including changing maps to show Crimea as Russian territory and removing a gay pride watch face”Apple forced to offer Russian iPhone users local apps at setup thanks to new law
‘In compliance with Russian legal requirements, continue to view available apps to download.’
So they already give in to government pressure in Russia (and China), what is next: Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Brunei?
The point is that Apple already gave in to the Russian government. The iPhone there at startup strongly advises to download these apps in order to comply with Russian law. Apple put these screens in the operating system in Russia. So iOs works differently in Russia, not the same globally and he is wrong.
No, this does not solve the problem and now you’re just being flippant.
I am happy to consent to Apple scanning my photos in iCloud. Apple could enable server-side scanning, and I would not stop using iCloud because of it.
With the current implementation, turning off iCloud photos does not prevent the scanning software from being installed on my device. They just *promise* that it won’t be used, and that’s not good enough for me, or for the other people voicing concern here.
If this doesn’t bother you, then that’s great for you. But don’t be willfully ignorant about why others are concerned.
I shouldn't have to drop a service I rely on just to avoid Apple hash scanning on my device. As I said in my previous reply to you:
"You don't consider client side scanning invasive. Many do. Even if it ultimately brings more iCloud privacy, it brings less client side privacy - slightly less, and with numerous hurdles and checks and balances in place - but less regardless."
No, the system is not designed to detect CP.
It's design to do the following things:
1. Identify photos which are copies or near derivatives from the picture in the CSAM database
2. Extremely good at NOT identifying other photos
It's #2 which makes this tool so inefficient to catch pornography in general or people participating in a protest.
It's good at catching iconic images shared by many people.