stratechery.com
We'll just have to agree to disagree, because there is no way I can agree with what you just said. Double blind is irrelevant, it's scanning on *my* device and not for my own benefit.
You’ll be asked to consent to this in updated Terms and Condition. You can opt-out by not uploading your pics to iCloud Photos. Just like you can opt-out from error telemetry (not for your own benefit).
As if that isn't going to change when governments ask for more. That's basically my problem in a nutshell -- I don't trust Apple to keep it that way, no matter what they say. The scanner on device makes it ever so easy for them to change the behavior. (at someone else's *request*.)
hard to do that on a dumb feature phone which may well be my next device. I'm tired of this un-ending snooping, and especially disappointed in Apple, as this completely flies in the face of their previous publicity campaigns.
That could be said about any server-side search as well?
Only in the very specific case of the post you are replying to. Elsewhere in this debate, plenty of arguments have been presented as to why doing A might increase the risk of Z. Some (knowledgable) groups are claiming that this scanning would be illegal in the EU, others that it might be unconstitutional in the US, and/or that the clauses in the T&Cs whereby users agree to this are unconscionable - if Apple wins a court ruling on that subject, it could set/break a legal precedent which would make future expansion easier. Then there's the self-evident fact that by possessing the facility, Apple could be legally forced to (ab)use it - true, they could also be legally forced to create such a facility from scratch, but already having the infrastructure makes it easier.
Also, if you follow these threads you'll see some people defending Apple by saying something like "your photos are only checked if you choose to uploaded them to iCloud"... When did it get to be OK that your photos can be scanned on iCloud? Did people dismiss any fears about that as "slippery slope fallacies?"
Anyway, these "logical fallacies" sites themselves tend to play to the fallacy that every debate is over a "falsifiable" fact that can be proven true or false. They mix up genuine logical fallacies of the "Dogs have 4 legs, Felix has 4 legs, therefore Felix is a dog" variety with common argument tropes that are often used as weak or fallacious arguments. Or to put it another way "Bob used 'slippery slope' in a fallacious argument, therefore all 'slippery slope' arguments are fallacies." - To be fair, most of them cover themselves once you read past the first sentence.
Still, from that site, "Want to share this fallacy on Facebook? Here's a button for you:" is the funniest line I've read all week.
Good question. Maybe he doesn't consider this to qualify as a backdoor? 🤔
Nope, not “all”.
The problem is not the the theoretical good of "policing", it is the abuse from the ever changing definition of "illegal activity".
I have no problem with server side scanning, it's not my device, it's Apple's, and they can do what they want. I assumed my pics were always decrypted on the server anyway since apple has the keys. I got the benefit of cloud storage, so I did gain something from that.
Scandals have happened with Apple before, such as confidential SIRI data given to outside contractors. The China server issue didn't even bat anyone's eyes. Apple as a brand is strong enough to withstand scandals.
It's interesting that we actually have not heard anything from Tim Cook about this, at all. Craig became the damage control after the privacy dude's blab. But so far, nothing from Tim Cook, which is interesting as he tends to be vocal about virtue signaling.
I think you and I probably value privacy differently. I am being reasonable. I don't consider Apple using my device against me to be reasonable. This is the software equivalent of early morning police raid on your premises. Only the police would need a warrant. Apple appear to think they don't.
Basically the five laws I provided a few posts back:Ben Thompson on Stratechery mentioned the relevant laws, for example.
Apple’s Mistake
While it’s possible to understand Apple’s motivations behind its decision to enable on-device scanning, the company had a better way to satisfy its societal obligations while preserving…
lol!
They don't scare me at all, unlike my device searches. It's their servers, I have no say in the matter if I want to use them. Part of the EULA.
You just don't understand our complaint. Did you ever read 1984? If not, I suggest it.
lol!
They don't scare me at all, unlike my device searches. It's their servers, I have no say in the matter if I want to use them. Part of the EULA.
You just don't understand our complaint. Did you ever read 1984? If not, I suggest it.