if you use iCloud for photos or device backups, they already are going through your photos.
if you don't use iCloud at all, you're in the minority in which Apple has to make the tough choice of catering to the majority of their customers.
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 you don't use iCloud at all, you're in the minority in which Apple has to make the tough choice of catering to the majority of their customers.
People already have the false belief that their iCloud photos are private, which they are currently not. This system doesn't change that assuming the user is still using iCloud photos.
I was responding to the quote: "under no circumstances should it be preemptively scanned."
This is a circumstance in which it is preemptively scanned.
Remember we’re talking about hashes here and not photos. Its not correct or incorrect really to say it scans photos cause it kind of does but it really doesn’t. Its a bit complicated but it was chosen because of the privacy it affords with accuracy it can output.
Your comparison of a nuclear warhead is a poor comparison. Also by comparison a nuclear warhead is incredibly affective at doing exactly what its been designed and told to do.
This feature they are introducing doesn’t kill people nor does it have fallout or attack people indiscriminately. In fact the only way it will go off IS if you are doing something bad. This issue here is you don’t have trust. I can respect that. I think that is really were the core of the discussion is for many.
Privacy is not a trade off for safety in every case. When I keep something private lets say my SS# I’m also safe from any malicious attacks. What we have in this situation is trying to find a very narrow path where privacy is maintained for everyone with the exception of people who are harboring these illegal images.
I don’t have a crystal ball and so I can’t predict how this could be corrupted. I have tried and listened to many of the arguments people have posted. Most are pure speculation and fear-mongering. That doesn’t mean a way doesn’t exist politically or technically. Politically I feel pretty safe as Apple as been very public on not bending to those demands. Technically I’m sure there will be bad actors that will try. However I also know there are ethical hackers and I believe Apple will address those issue.
All of this is because I trust them. I’m not saying you have to. I think you should voice your concerns. Ask the hard questions. Make good points. Hell even bring up historical comparisons, as unfair as some have made them. Not saying you have. Since Apple seems like they are going through with it no matter what, hold them accountable. You don’t have to use their products. Its people like you that, if Apple is being honest, make sure that it doesn’t get out of line.
The quote I was responding to was "any scanning or review of our private photos is a total invasion of privacy."
I'm showing how that statement is false. There is some scanning that is *not* a total invasion of privacy. On device scanning is one.
Anecdotal.
And guess what, I'm going to wager that majority of iPhone customers that are complaining about privacy are going to continue iCloud for their photos where their entire photo libraries can be viewed by a human unknown to the owner of the account. For as long that statement is true, asking for privacy is moot considering they'll continue to use this "public" iCloud.
Customers ultimately pay for scanning as costs get passed to them.
Power efficiency is debatable. We're talking about thousands of servers in several data centers on 24/7 whether there are photos to scan or not. Serverside scanning likely consumes more energy than the overhead of using the user's device to scan.
They did have experts validate it. They don't mention specifically that it's 1 in a trillion, but one expert confirms: "Harmless users should experience minimal to no loss of privacy, because visual derivatives are revealed only
if there are enough matches to CSAM pictures, and only for the images that match known CSAM
pictures. The accuracy of the matching system, combined with the threshold, makes it very unlikely
that pictures that are not known CSAM pictures will be revealed."
The threshold can be modified by one line of code to reach 1 in a trillion. What would be a realistic reason of why Apple would lie about it? Do you really think Apple prefers to have false accounts flagged left and right?
Seems like people assume the worst and treat everything as "us vs them".
That's ridiculous.
So instead of turning off iCloud (which would turn off CSAM detection), they're going through the risky route of courting new children to have sex with just to have the convenience of iCloud sync?
It doesn't. People would just turn off iCloud (which would turn off CSAM detection) instead of risking prison time by having sex with new children just to have more content.
Again, you're making ZERO sense here.
A bit funny how someone types /fin in this thread but yet keeps coming back to continue arguing only to say bye again.
Going say bye to that particular person 👋 (but I remain open to conversing with those that can actually have a proper discussion).
Going say bye to that particular person 👋 (but I remain open to conversing with those that can actually have a proper discussion).
It does. If you make only new content safe to have, then more kids need to be abused to produce more content.
No.
They've been scanning iCloud photos since 2019 https://www.imore.com/apple-says-its-scanning-photos-uploaded-icloud-weed-out-child-abusers
So whatever supposed "increase in demand" already took place a couple of years ago. This new CSAM detection system does nothing with respect to demand.
It's more likely those people turned off iCloud already.
According to you, they must not be making any changes at all, because that's the only way demand wouldn't go up.
Otherwise, you are thinking about it as a PUTT'M IN JAIL / CAPT'L PUNISHMENT ROX approach and not thinking about the abuse industry.
I totally disagree -- it's the exact opposite -- if it's only for my benfit and doesn't get reported, it's okay. If it's not for my benefit like the CSAM scanning, and it scans my files, it's not okay -- that's the whole argument basically, and why I ask why you equate photos scanning and CSAM scanning -- one is for my benefit, one is for the government's benefit and on my dime.
I don't care what the majority do, never did -- the majority don't even watch the news. What is right and wrong is that's important to me.
When I buy a new phone in 2 or 3 years, and that's fine, they have a right to set that price and I have a choice whether I pay it or not. As for server side scanning costing more, no way in heck that's true. (or haven't you ever worked on the server side?)
I would add one more to this list. The Apple hardware and software I currently have does what I need it to. Sometimes I'm tempted by Android or Windows. Maybe they'd do what I need them to as well. Maybe they'd do it better. But I'd need to purchase new hardware and research, find alternative software, learn how to use it, and that would take time. In the end it might work better, but it might work worse. And I have limited time. And so since what I have now works well enough, while I'm tempted, I hesitate to try something else. If I knew someone who was already doing what I do on a different platform and I could copy their setup, I might give it a try.
There are so many things wrong with your statement I honestly don't know where to begin.
Your comment made no sense.
When they turned off iCloud two years ago, this new system doesn't change anything for them because IT ONLY SCANS WHEN ICLOUD IS TURNED ON.
If they didn't turn off iCloud, then your supposed "increase in demand of filming new child porn" already took place and considering it's more difficult to catch predators through on device CSAM detection because there's a high threshold that must be met before anyone is alerted as opposed to all-you-can-scan via iCloud serverside.
don't bother. we're done. you're deliberately avoiding the fact that it's easier for people to turn off iCloud and continue viewing child porn like the old fashion way without reprecussions as opposed to filming new content.
have a good one.
that would be a scan that is not a "total invasion of privacy" which counters the statement i responded to: "any scanning or review of our private photos is a total invasion of privacy."
Apple does. It's literally their business to care what the majority do.
Great. So we'll just agree to disagree where applicable.
See my post here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...eatures-later-this-year.2307130/post-30168363
Still not 100% sold on this, but my perspective is shifting a bit.
I'm a full stack engineer and have setup image processing pipelines on colocated servers and as well as on AWS. I am without a doubt 100% sure it costs more.
Scanning every single photo uploaded by over a billion customers distributed across many data centers as opposed to having a billion CPUs already paid for and managed by users to do it? It's an easy answer. Server side scanning is more costly.
Alright, I believe it's my fault that I have contributed to the overuse of analogies to the point where we all made them useless as we're all trying fix and adjust the analogies to suit our argument. Analogies are meant to simplify the situation, but instead we've all made it complex and they no longer fit the argument.
I was going to try and introduce another analogy to the "police station" analogy like a bill counter/counterfeit detector, but I can see how that'll add some confusion.
Let's just leave it at that, but glad to see someone properly discussing this as opposed to some of the other people I've talked to on here. Cheers.