Should we be really putting this technology in the hands of governments either ? ... If so, which governments do you suggest ?
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.
Privacy Whistleblower Edward Snowden and EFF Slam Apple's Plans to Scan Messages and iCloud Images
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe write also that facebook, google, Russian government and others are doing it all the time not to talk about it.
You are very much correct, but let's not be naïve to think that the government has not figured out how to have "private entities" do the things which they themselves are constitutionally forbidden.
"So we're regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives, dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans are seeing across all of social and traditional media. And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies." "We don't take anything down. We don't block anything, Facebook, and any private sector company makes decisions about what information should be on their platform. Our point is that there is information that is leading to people not taking the vaccine."
And that's just what they admit (or rather brag).
I'm sure they've considered it. But they're going to have to reassure everyone how they're going to make sure this can't be exploited. So far we have no clue how they intend to solve this.
Also this makes for a very fishy timing considering China’s current crackdown on tech…
How?
Apple confirmed a real "person" will have access and see the photo tagged by their surveillance software to verify if it's illegal or not.
it's the basic backdoor scenario.once opened,it's open for others too.
if they can do it,hackers and other interested parties can too.easier than ever before.
Apple used to say what happens on your phone stays on your phone.this is clearly the exact opposite now.
didn't they say they keep Face ID info encrypted in a chip? I guess that's accessible for other too.
how do you know? and how can you trust them so much now?
it's literally a complete change of policy.
privacy is not their marketing gimmick anymore.
they are policing users without permission now.
remember privacy was their main slogan.thats why many people bought their product.
they even refused to unlock a convicts phone for the FBI and now this!? how can you say nothings changed! lol
yours yes! but Apple (and likely others) will take a look on regular basis,without your permission just in case. lol
like I said before, it's like police strip search you everyday, but sure..your belongings are still yours. lol
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have explode...
www.amazon.com
Three Felonies a Day, bud.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Sure, once you move or sync ANY of your files to someone else's servers, you are entrusting them with access to those files*. So Apple, to increase privacy while continuing to scan for illegal imagery, is voluntarily restricting their access to file scan data by moving that process to the user's device, which Apple cannot read.
I honestly don't see the downside to this. If people want a 0.0% chance of their photos (legal or not) being seen by a third party, then they have the choice not to put these files on external servers owned by Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. If they DO choose to do that, then at least now (with Apple's cloud services) their data will no longer be scanned on the cloud, nor will those scan results be available to Apple unless they're actually moving a certain amount of illegal material to iCloud. So it seems to me Apple is staying true to their emphasis on privacy by making iCloud now more private than ever (though of course it will never be as private as your iPhone).
As to your analogy, I think the flaw in it is that simply taking stolen items outside of your home is not analogous to giving possession of them or entrusting them to a third party. It would be more like the authorities are alerted if you take one of those stolen items out of your house and to an HOA official and ask them to help keep it safe for you . . . or to a bank safe deposit box.
* https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/icloud/
Last edited:
Congratulations Apple! At one fell swoop, you’ve just leapfrogged Facebook.
what are you smoking? have you heard about security enclave? apple cannot access personal file if you have icloud off even if it wanted to
You are confused. Your iPhone's contents are still as private as ever. The ONLY thing Apple will know is the hashes of any flagged images that you sync to iCloud from your phone if the number of those flagged images exceeds the threshold they have set. They were already scanning your iCloud content for violations on the cloud, so this makes things more private by moving the scanning to your phone, which Apple can't see. So they're actually living up to their reputation for valuing user privacy by voluntarily restricting the information they see. But you have always given up privacy by putting anything on iCloud vs. keeping it just on your phone. Go read the legal agreement for iCloud services. They can do lots of things with your files including share them with third parties (and not just law enforcement).
Edit: True, but that wasn't the only problem. One of the main issues was that they were coming into my home to scan the stuff in the first place rather than letting the police handle tracking it/me down on their own.
Hey macrumors, every notification on this post was negative. I’m beginning to think you have a bunch of criminals amongst your ranks.
Such as? Protesting on the street was ok in Sydney before, but during lockdown, it is illegal.
Slave was legal back in 1800. It is not today.
But see, when you say "coming into my home" that makes it sound like some sort of major invasion of privacy. It would be more like there's some sort of impersonal device in your house that is constantly scanning for stolen items but the encrypted info it collects is not readable by anyone and doesn't go anywhere or become readable unless you start moving a significant amount of stolen items to someone else's property for safe keeping. But even then it's not a great analogy because there's no logical connection between your home and the other person's property like there is with an iPhone and iCloud.
I'm not sure if there even is a good analogy for this, as it's a pretty unique thing with a technology ecosystem that I can't think of a parallel outside the industry to make an analogy with. Will have to think that through more.
"Ultimately, saying that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to
hide is no different from saying you don't care about freedom of speech because
you have nothing to say. Or that you don't care about freedom of the press
because you don't like to read. Or that you don't care about freedom of religion
because you don't believe in God. Or that you don't care about the freedom to
peaceably assemble because you're a lazy, antisocial agoraphobe. Just because
this or that freedom might not have meaning to you today doesn't mean that it
doesn't or won't have meaning tomorrow, to you, or to your neighbor or to the
crowds of principled dissidents I was following on my phone who were protesting
halfway across the planet, hoping to gain just a fraction of the freedom that my
country was busily dismantling."
Ed Snowden, Permanent Record, pp. 208-209
hide is no different from saying you don't care about freedom of speech because
you have nothing to say. Or that you don't care about freedom of the press
because you don't like to read. Or that you don't care about freedom of religion
because you don't believe in God. Or that you don't care about the freedom to
peaceably assemble because you're a lazy, antisocial agoraphobe. Just because
this or that freedom might not have meaning to you today doesn't mean that it
doesn't or won't have meaning tomorrow, to you, or to your neighbor or to the
crowds of principled dissidents I was following on my phone who were protesting
halfway across the planet, hoping to gain just a fraction of the freedom that my
country was busily dismantling."
Ed Snowden, Permanent Record, pp. 208-209
"Ultimately, saying that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Or that you don't care about freedom of the press because you don't like to read. Or that you don't care about freedom of religion because you don't believe in God. Or that you don't care about the freedom to peaceably assemble because you're a lazy, antisocial agoraphobe. Just because this or that freedom might not have meaning to you today doesn't mean that it doesn't or won't have meaning tomorrow, to you, or to your neighbor or to the crowds of principled dissidents I was following on my phone who were protesting halfway across the planet, hoping to gain just a fraction of the freedom that my country was busily dismantling."
Ed Snowden, Permanent Record, pp. 208-209
Ed Snowden, Permanent Record, pp. 208-209
Yeah that's a tough one for sure, and you make a good point. I guess my only real counter to that would be that I feel like it should be my choice if this impersonal device lives in my house, always checking for stolen items.