EFF Pressures Apple to Completely Abandon Controversial Child Safety Features

[jntdroid]

I'm simply quoting what I felt was the crux of your comment, which I also believe is an irrelevant point. You said I was right "BUT" . . . "we own the device." And I'm saying, how does that change anything?

I'm not sure how you feel Apple isn't respecting any "dynamic" here. If you don't use iCloud for photos, then no scan will take place. And if you DO use iCloud for photos, you're already voluntarily allowing your photos to be stored on Apple's servers (and thus accessible to them, per the terms of service), so why would you care if they're being scanned, especially when the scan is happening outside of Apple's access?

Since you're a fan of "promot[ing] rational conversation", let me explain how that works.

Your point: "You don't own iOS."

My counterpoint: "But we own the device."

My counterpoint was a response to yours. It doesn't necessarily negate yours, as yours doesn't necessarily negate mine. They are counterpoints that both weigh into the opinions being thrown around about this whole situation.

Everything you state is factually true. That said, you clearly don't care about the physical device ownership, while others do. Device ownership is not a non-factor, no matter how you try to spin it. You can choose to ignore it, that's fine. Others can choose not to, which is also fine.

Because some care about the physical device ownership, they don't like that Apple has decided to use that physical space to perform this type of scanning - even if they have a right to and even if it's "outside" of Apple's access. Some are ok with (and prefer) them scanning whatever is already in the cloud because it's already in the cloud, and already on Apple's servers.

I used this analogy elsewhere, but it's like your phone is a train station. Your existing photo hashes sit in that train station, untouched and unscanned, as long as iCloud Photos is turned off. But as soon as you turn it on, your photo hashes hop onto a train track that is headed out of the train station as fast as your internet allows. That track has no path other than going through a CSAM filter as it heads out of the station. Some people simply don't like having that filter in their station, and believe that filter should remain on the other end of the track, even if it means Apple has the potential to see more of their photos (something the whole world is already used to dealing with).

 

[usagora]

As a colleague of mine used to say 'it's not f(x) but d(x)'. It's not where we are that is the concern. It's where systems like this could go. And when you get objections to a proposal from all quarters - from people who know enough about the topic to understand its potential advantages and disadvantage, like EFF - you're doing something wrong. Very wrong.

I don't understand your colleague's algebra (not sure what f, d, and x are supposed to represent). But based off your interpretation, it sounds like just the classic slippery slope, alarmist/fear-mongering type thinking. Now, if Apple was implementing this technology AND giving access to third parties to control it, then you'd have a legitimate concern. But that's not what they're doing.

EFF is just one group of "experts". I'm sure Apple has their own in-house "experts" and/or consulted outside ones as they've worked on this technology. As you may know, not all experts agree, especially when it comes down to matters of opinion like this.

 

[VulchR]

...And if you DO use iCloud for photos, you're already voluntarily allowing your photos to be stored on Apple's servers (and thus accessible to them, per the terms of service), so why would you care if they're being scanned, especially when the scan is happening outside of Apple's access?

Apple's terms of service for iCloud also includes a plank that says illegal images cannot be stored. So basically Apple is accusing everybody of bad faith by scanning. The lack of trust is simply being reciprocated by many users. Anyway, people have the right to object to what they believe is an intrusion on freedom, and Apple's actions have implications beyond detecting CSAM. We might very well mark these last two months as the start of something awful in authoritarian countries, even by historical standards, for Apple's scheme is easily copied and modified.

 

[Mercury7]

Except they haven't "reversed course". I know that's what you want, but that's not what's happened.

Apple will not put this code on our devices, they will figure a work around and all the privacy foundations will sign off on it before implementation, whether you want to call it reversal,abandonment,reset or backtrack……or in apples word, pause… it all means the same thing…… zero chance Apple says we are moving forward as planned, only reason I’m not claiming total victory is because I still need to see what they do. I’ll probably never have auto update turned on again though, they lost the blind trust…. Which truthfully I probably should never have had in the first place because it does bother me they live in such a bubble they didnt even see the backlash coming. It should have been obvious to them this was a bad idea.

 

[usagora]

Since you're a fan of "promot[ing] rational conversation", let me explain how that works.

Your point: "You don't own iOS."

My counterpoint: "But we own the device."

My counterpoint was a response to yours. It doesn't necessarily negate yours, as yours doesn't necessarily negate mine. They are counterpoints that both weigh into the opinions being thrown around about this whole situation.

Everything you state is factually true. That said, you clearly don't care about the physical device ownership, while others do. Device ownership is not a non-factor, no matter how you try to spin it. You can choose to ignore it, that's fine. Others can choose not to, which is also fine.

Because some care about the physical device ownership, they don't like that Apple has decided to use that physical space to perform this type of scanning - even if they have a right to and even if it's "outside" of Apple's access. Some are ok with them scanning whatever is already in the cloud because it's already in the cloud, and already on Apple's servers.

I used this analogy elsewhere, but it's like your phone is a train station. Your existing photo hashes sit in that train station, untouched and unscanned, as long as iCloud Photos is turned off. But as soon as you turn it on, your photo hashes hop onto a train track that is headed out of the train station as fast as your internet allows. That track has no path other than going through a CSAM filter as it heads out of the station. Some people simply don't like having that filter in their station, and believe that filter should remain on the other end of the track, even if it means Apple has the potential to see more of their photos (something the whole world is already used to dealing with).

I bet there are tons of things in iOS installations that you don't plan on using. So why stop with this "filter"? If you're concern is merely a persnickety one of "This is MY phone and don't WANT this feature (which doesn't affect me in any way) installed this on it because I SAID so!" then where does it end? Should Apple start offering highly customizable installations of iOS? Or should every non-critical feature of iOS be downloaded and installed on demand as they become needed or run in the cloud? I simply don't get the objection if it doesn't have rational basis.

 

[dk001]

Apple will not put this code on our devices, they will figure a work around and all the privacy foundations will sign off on it before implementation, whether you want to call it reversal,abandonment,reset or backtrack……or in apples word, pause… it all means the same thing…… zero chance Apple says we are moving forward as planned, only reason I’m not claiming total victory is because I still need to see what they do. I’ll probably never have auto update turned on again though, they lost the blind trust…. Which truthfully I probably should never have had in the first place because it does bother me they live in such a bubble they didnt even see the backlash coming. It should have been obvious to them this was a bad idea.

I suspect it will be there when 15 launches but it will be inactive.
I don't know if they have a version without it in the code.

Either way there will be a lot of eyes watching for this.

 

[dk001]

I bet there are tons of things in iOS installations that you don't plan on using. So why stop with this "filter"? If you're concern is merely a persnickety one of "This is MY phone and don't WANT this feature (which doesn't affect me in any way) installed this on it because I SAID so!" then where does it end? Should Apple start offering highly customizable installations of iOS? Or should every non-critical feature of iOS be downloaded and installed on demand as they become needed or run in the cloud? I simply don't get the objection if it doesn't have rational basis.

An app store feature shopping list would be extraordinarily cool!

 

[usagora]

Apple's terms of service for iCloud also includes a plank that says illegal images cannot be stored. So basically Apple is accusing everybody of bad faith by scanning.

That's silly. Apple doesn't know you from Adam. It would be totally stupid of them to blindly trust all their users when it comes to the use of THEIR (Apple's) servers. Therefore, everyone gets equal treatment in terms of accountability for what they upload.

You must be one of those people who go around recording themselves refusing to show their receipt at the store on the way out and arguing/fighting with the employee who's doing their job requesting it and claiming they're accusing you of theft.

I guess when police ask to see your ID on a traffic stop, they're accusing you of bad faith too, huh? I mean, shouldn't your verbal identification be enough?

Or how about when your bank asks for your ID to deposit checks or make withdraws? How dare they not take you at your word, right?!

Need I go on? Countless examples in everyday life of "trust, but verify" type situations. And that's totally sensible and appropriate. That's a car cry from an accusation. If they wanted to accuse you of dishonesty, they wouldn't ask for proof/verification/etc.

The lack of trust is simply being reciprocated by many users. Anyway, people have the right to object to what they believe is an intrusion on freedom, and Apple's actions have implications beyond detecting CSAM. We might very well mark these last two months as the start of something awful in authoritarian countries, even by historical standards, for Apple's scheme is easily copied and modified.

More melodramatic and alarmist language. I know many eat this up, but I don't.

 

[usagora]

Apple will not put this code on our devices, they will figure a work around and all the privacy foundations will sign off on it before implementation, whether you want to call it reversal,abandonment,reset or backtrack……or in apples word, pause… it all means the same thing…… zero chance Apple says we are moving forward as planned, only reason I’m not claiming total victory is because I still need to see what they do.

So, it's not "zero chance" then.

 

[usagora]

An app store feature shopping list would be extraordinarily cool!

I don't think so. And I highly doubt Apple will ever do that. Not unless it's some optional feature that takes up many GBs of space.

 

[jntdroid]

I bet there are tons of things in iOS installations that you don't plan on using. So why stop with this "filter"? If you're concern is merely a persnickety one of "This is MY phone and don't WANT this feature (which doesn't affect me in any way) installed this on it because I SAID so!" then where does it end? Should Apple start offering highly customizable installations of iOS? Or should every non-critical feature of iOS be downloaded and installed on demand as they become needed or run in the cloud? I simply don't get the objection if it doesn't have rational basis.

I get where you're trying to come from, but your comparisons don't hold up. This is not a feature. It does nothing to add to the user experience of the device. Comparing it to other "features" or unused "things" is irrelevant. None of those other "features" have the goal of catching bad guys and reporting them to the authorities. That's the single goal of the CSAM scanning system. For many people that's the line that's being crossed. Apple is (was) stepping into law enforcement's realm by putting this on every iPhone with iOS 15.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and truly believe Apple had good intentions with this. I also see the value in how they're trying to implement this from a privacy standpoint. But at the same time, there is a principle of privacy and ownership at play here, and believing in that principle is not being persnickety.

I'll repost this as it's worth watching, especially the last 5 minutes:

They bring up some interesting points...

 

[usagora]

I get where you're trying to come from, but your comparisons don't hold up. This is not a feature. It does nothing to add to the user experience of the device. Comparing it to other "features" or unused "things" is irrelevant. None of those other "features" have the goal of catching bad guys and reporting them to the authorities. That's the single goal of the CSAM scanning system. For many people that's the line that's being crossed. Apple is (was) stepping into law enforcement's realm by putting this on every iPhone with iOS 15.

Simply reporting illegal activity is the duty of every good citizen or company. Law enforcement's realm is to investigate and prosecute if there are legal grounds. I manage a property that has around 50 security cameras installed. If we catch something illegal on these and report it to the police, are we acting as law enforcement? Of course not. We're not arresting or detaining anyone.

It is indeed a feature. I know in marketing jargon we think of features as you describe them ("what cool thing can it do for me?"), but in reality, a feature is simply something that the operating system does, even something we don't think is "exciting."

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and truly believe Apple had good intentions with this. I also see the value in how they're trying to implement this from a privacy standpoint. But at the same time, there is a principle of privacy and ownership at play here, and believing in that principle is not being persnickety.

Well, again, I disagree with your assessment there, but at this point we're going to be going around in circles, so I'll leave it to rest here. I do appreciate your restrained, balanced language, though! Some on this forum have consigned Apple to the depths of Hades, LOL!

 

[Mercury7]

So, it's not "zero chance" then.

Zero chance…. Watching to ensure I feel comfortable with what they do, could still compelled to leave the ecosystem depending on what they do and say….. why are you trolling everyone anyway… pretty obvious you don’t care what they do

 

[WriteNow]

I'll repost this as it's worth watching, especially the last 5 minutes

Good video that's worth seeing. And the last five minutes was definitely worth seeing if nothing else.

(Although I did feel a bit old and out of it when I heard the comment about text messaging being the most important thing done on a phone. I can remember when the most important thing was phone calls--and indeed when that was the only thing one could with a phone!)

 

[usagora]

Zero chance…. Watching to ensure I feel comfortable with what they do, could still compelled to leave the ecosystem depending on what they do and say….. why are you trolling everyone anyway… pretty obvious you don’t care what they do

Ah, yes, the "you're trolling" comeback is a great failsafe when you have no rational response. So easy to dismiss people that way. No, what I'm doing is objecting to what I think are complete overreactions and misunderstandings of what Apple is actually doing here (as well as the alarmist, fear-mongering slippery slope arguments people are putting forth . . . basically "First thing is CSAM, next thing you know Apple will allow totalitarian governments to use this technology to persecute its citizens and throw them in jail!").

 

[Mercury7]

Ah, yes, the "you're trolling" comeback is a great failsafe when you have no rational response. So easy to dismiss people that way. No, what I'm doing is objecting to what I think are complete overreactions and misunderstandings of what Apple is actually doing here (as well as the alarmist, fear-mongering slippery slope arguments people are putting forth . . . basically "First thing is CSAM, next thing you know Apple will allow totalitarian governments to use this technology to persecute its citizens and throw them in jail!").

I think you should just read the objections from all the privacy groups, they pretty sum up what everyone has said here, your not going to convince anyone here because it’s based on principles

 

[spazzcat]

So… Too many customers turned off automatic ios updates? Customers stopped renew icloud subscriptions? They are afraid of selling rates of new iphones with a scanning options violating privacy?

And now they are planning to ”delay” this until people update ios and then they turn the scanning on as ”fixed”?

I am guessing no one did any of those things ...

 

[usagora]

I think you should just read the objections from all the privacy groups, they pretty sum up what everyone has said here, your not going to convince anyone here because it’s based on principles

You can have good principles but misinterpret things as violating them when in reality they don't, or commit slippery slope fallacies that assert something will lead to them being violated by a chain of events that does not logically follow from the initial thing being objected to. Concern does not equate to rational arguments against something.

 

[bobcomer]

I am guessing no one did any of those things ...

I did all of them.

 

[scvrx]

This discussion is over.
Some of us, with knowledge outside Apple echo chamber, shared logical and rational point of view based on facts and realities.

For me and my colleagues this decision from Apple is the final straw. We will no longer be part of Apple ecosystem, personally and professionally. We moved forward to Linux and FOSS solutions.

I am glad that this event is happened.
As a result I will have more privacy and more financial efficiency.

There will be no critical loss for Apple, the core user base is not capable of understanding this decision outreach and will be happy to continue giving trust "just because".

So be it.

 

[antiprotest]

I agree with the security experts, the EFF, Snowden and such figures, as well as the inventors of this technology (who called what they did "dangerous"), that this technology should not be implemented.

Maybe Apple and its supporters on this issue are the ones ignorant and need to read other people's FAQs.

 

[antiprotest]

This discussion is over.
Some of us, with knowledge outside Apple echo chamber, shared logical and rational point of view based on facts and realities.

For me and my colleagues this decision from Apple is the final straw. We will no longer be part of Apple ecosystem, personally and professionally. We moved forward to Linux and FOSS solutions.

I am glad that this event is happened.
As a result I will have more privacy and more financial efficiency.

There will be no critical loss for Apple, the core user base is not capable of understanding this decision outreach and will be happy to continue giving trust "just because".

So be it.

Not everyone has the resolve to follow you but I applaud your decision.

 

[dk001]

That's silly. Apple doesn't know you from Adam. It would be totally stupid of them to blindly trust all their users when it comes to the use of THEIR (Apple's) servers. Therefore, everyone gets equal treatment in terms of accountability for what they upload.

You must be one of those people who go around recording themselves refusing to show their receipt at the store on the way out and arguing/fighting with the employee who's doing their job requesting it and claiming they're accusing you of theft.

I guess when police ask to see your ID on a traffic stop, they're accusing you of bad faith too, huh? I mean, shouldn't your verbal identification be enough?

Or how about when your bank asks for your ID to deposit checks or make withdraws? How dare they not take you at your word, right?!

Need I go on? Countless examples in everyday life of "trust, but verify" type situations. And that's totally sensible and appropriate. That's a car cry from an accusation. If they wanted to accuse you of dishonesty, they wouldn't ask for proof/verification/etc.



More melodramatic and alarmist language. I know many eat this up, but I don't.

Usually I can understand at least the point you are coming from even if I don’t agree with it.
This time you have lost me.

 

[dk001]

I don't think so. And I highly doubt Apple will ever do that. Not unless it's some optional feature that takes up many GBs of space.

Sadly I suspect you are correct.

 

[dk001]

So after all this, I find almost all posters fall into one of these categories:

1. Cool!!! This is a great thing!
2. Meh. When’s the new iPhone coming out?
3. I’m going to keep my eye on this…
4. I’m keeping my eye on this. No updates or purchases for me until Apple cancels this.
5. I have or I’m in the process of dumping Apple.

It’s a far cry from where most of us were likely a couple of months ago.