Craig Federighi Acknowledges Confusion Around Apple Child Safety Features and Explains New Details About Safeguards

[bryn0076]

In corporate-speak, "customer disagrees" = "confusion" (confusion, because if you understood what we are doing you'd agree)

If you read the comments in this thread, it's clear that people still don't understand how it works. So yeah, there is confusion.

I'm on page 3 of 11 and there are at least 5 responses from people who could not have read / understood the article... And this has been going on for days. So yeah, "confusion" fits.

I reckon that by the time i get to the end of the comments, someone will mention, again, 'what about my kids bath pics?'

 

[usagora]

So basically he's repeating what could be easily understood all along by people who actually read the writeup on Apple's website without turning on their overactive imaginations and anti-Apple bias

But nothing will ever be enough for those folks. They've already held trial in their mind and convicted Apple of wrongdoing based on hearsay and speculation.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

pretty sure not. here in canada they are forcing you to show papers in order to eat in a restaurant but not if you work in a restaurant. Basically a person who works in a restaurant can work no problem but if he want to eat in the same restaurant he works its illegal without being vaxed. Think what you want but this has nothing to do with the bug. its about obedience

Well, that’s your problem.

 

[citysnaps]

No real difference in the end.

I'll choose option 1. Every time.

 

[Robert.Walter]

That’s a cover up lie and a random number Craig is throwing at us.

Way he said “around 30” made me wonder if they are rewriting code to raise it from a lower number or already are taking heat to drop it from a higher number.

his lack of precision was deliberate and unsettling.

But the issue isn’t if 10, 30 or 50, the issue is it’s being done at all.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I said this exact thing the other day. Given the subject matter, it's an unwin-able situation. Keep it and the users get angry. Get rid of the feature (and because of the bolded part above) the media (and probably politicians) paint Apple as the "perv protectors".

No reason to be upset if they get rid of it before rollout and take a step back and reconsider.

If anything, that would show logical reasoning to a misstep here.

 

[tgwaste]

Why is Apple alerted and reviewing anything? Is Apple the police now? What on earth gives these scumbags the right to policy ANYTHING on my device?

 

[hans1972]

But if one of your photos is flagged under this new system, an Apple employee will be able to see the photo (indeed a low quality version) before it is even uploaded to iCloud. So they have no right, to make such a claim.

No, the viewable photo will be in the safety voucher which will be uploaded with your original photo.

 

[usagora]

So you’re ok with the cops coming into your house whenever they feel like it, because they say they’re looking for pedophiles under your couch?

I mean, are you protecting pedophiles if you object?

No one's "coming into your house" Apple knows nothing about what's on your phone unless you attempt to upload a collection of CSAM to iCloud. They're not snooping around on your phone looking for it (on-device detection is not done by humans and none of that data leaves your phone except attached to illegal images).

 

[turbineseaplane]

Perhaps they are being forced to provide this functionality.

They should absolutely come clean and just say that if it's true.

If they are being forced, it'd actually be better so we could direct the concern and outrage towards whatever entity is attempting to force this through..

All of this needs more transparency and debate about how to go about things (or not).

A corporation should not unilaterally decide to switch to "methods of scanning your content, on your own device, looking for things third parties want"

 

[bobcomer]

No. Apple will be scanning your hashed photos against a table of hashed photos of child porn.

Would you prefer the government scan you photo jpegs on Apple's servers, by government mandate, should push come to shove?

I would much prefer that than Apple scanning photos on my phone.

 

[citysnaps]

If you read the comments in this thread, it's clear that people still don't understand how it works. So yeah, there is confusion.

I'm on page 3 of 11 and there are at least 5 responses from people who could not have read / understood the article... And Thursday had been going on for days. So yeah, "confusion" fits.

I reckon that by the time i get to the end of the comments, someone will mention, again, 'what about my kids bath pics?'

I think it has to do with many people lacking curiosity. And it's much easier to make noise and get attention than taking a couple of minutes to read and to critically think through what it is about.

 

[usagora]

Why is Apple alerted and reviewing anything? Is Apple the police now? What on earth gives these scumbags the right to policy ANYTHING on my device?

If you attempt to upload illegal material to iCloud, you've made it their business.

 

[tgwaste]

"but think of the children" has been used for decades now to erode privacy.

people seem to think if you are against it, you support it. they know exactly what they are doing.

Exactly. meanwhile the actually offenders will just use another camera to take their illegal pictures and the rest of us get to live with the Apple Police.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Rene Ritchie

Please - I'm begging you
Get unbiased sources re: Apple stuff.

The Ritchies and Grubers are the world are financially intertwined with the ongoing success of Apple.
It's their whole livelihood.

I'm not saying you won't get kernels of info of use, but the whole tilt and implied bias with those types of sources is always towards a defense of Apple.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Nice FUD there, Craig. No, I’m not “confused” by what you are doing. You’ve made spyware and embedding it into iOS. The mechanism does not matter. The limits on when it is used do not matter (and they can always change). The point is that my device has stopped serving only me to serving the government as well.

The bad news is that doubling by down on this makes it less likely for Apple to back down. The good news is that, the more they feel they have to defend this, the more attention they attract to the issue and help keep the outrage cycle going. So let’s hope they do a lot more interviews, each one ruining their reputation more and more.

 

[Zalmox]

Well, that’s your problem.

you seem to feel very righteous and sure about yourself, i hope in the future you will not be proven wrong

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

you seem to feel very righteous and sure about yourself

I absolutely am.

 

[turbineseaplane]

They have been scanning photos for long before this feature was announced. How do you think they recognize people in your photos? Where was your outrage when that feature rolled out?

That is scanning the users own photos, for the users own benefit.

What they are proposing now is, for the first time ever, going through users content on users devices, looking for things that external third parties want.

It couldn't be more different than your example.

 

[hgmDQnmScv(5^8d>]

No, the viewable photo will be in the safety voucher which will be uploaded with your original photo.

Well if that is the case I apologise for being wrong about that, but I still don't like it that it is being done on device to start with and I am not clear what a safety voucher really is. The Apple FAQ did not mention it once....

 

[Robert.Walter]

I'll choose option 1. Every time.

I prefer option 0, the Do Nothing option with a side of end to end encryption without anybody having a key.

 

[bobcomer]

But if you believe they are lying then what could they do to convince you otherwise since you have no actual evidence they are lying? Surely you can see the illogic of your stance?

The only way they could convince me of my privacy being important to them would be to not have the scanner on my phone, period. Nothing short of that will make me trust Apple again.

 

[ian87w]

There isn’t even an option automatically download iMessage attachments into your photo library. It’s fun to imagine scary stories though isn’t it?

Not an iMessage user so i was just guessing. But on WhatsApp, the default is to download sent photos and the save to camera roll option is enabled by default. Any comments on that?

 

[turbineseaplane]

By doing it this way, they can continue to make the claim that they can't access your stuff. Your iCloud photos are technically encrypted - they just hold the keys. By doing it this way, they don't have to decrypt anything in iCloud as they're receiving the malicious "package" in its own "safety voucher" package. Yes, they'll have to review that, but not at the expense of decrypting any other iCloud photos.

Apple does not - and never has had - encrypted iCloud photos

I believe will lead to E2EE for iCloud Photos.

Then they need to pause this rollout completely and announce that feature simultaneously and be way way more open about all the questions and concerns up front.

 

[MozMan68]

I have looked at the explanation from Apple several times, and I believe I am correct.





I believe the descriptions are deliberately disingenuous, they state the system is designed to keep dodgy photos off iCloud, hence the on device scanning, and carefully say this feature only applies to photos that the user chooses to upload to iCloud photos, to make it sound as if only photos on the cloud will be scanned, but they have already made it clear that the scanning will take place on the iPhone, prior to uploading.

The whole point of the system is to keep the photo off the cloud, to stop it being uploaded if it matches. If a number of photos match, Apple will conduct a human review, as the photo has not been uploaded to iCloud, remember the system has detected the photo and matched it, and it being designed to stop the photo being uploaded to iCloud, will not upload it, will then be scanned by a human review, on device.

Sorry but you are comparing chalk and cheese.

The feature that finds dogs etc, does so all on device. Apple made a big point about this, the same with the finding faces feature.

This new feature scanning for illegal content, scans on the device and makes it possible for an Apple employee to view images from your phone which have not even been uploaded to the cloud. Do you not understand how that really takes the biscuit?

This is an incorrect statement.