Hacker News Reader

Comment by nomel | Hacker News Reader

The precedent has been set long ago by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Drop box and all of the other cloud image providers. From my understanding, the difference is that they scan in the cloud after being uploaded, which requires they decrypt your images in the cloud, rather than what Apple wants to do, scan on your device before uploading, so they don’t have to decrypt in the cloud. None of this scanning happens if the images aren’t destined for iCloud. This is moving he scan for the cloud service, that everyone is doing, to your phone. That’s the only difference that I see. Am I seeing it wrong?

View on HN

For now, yes. But people are worried that that's just the first step to get the snooping service onto your phone. Because why stop here? Soon it maybe scanning photos not just destined for iCloud.

And why draw the line at photos? Videos, music, text files, anything could be interesting for governments, film studios and record companies. Why do you have an MP4 of the latest Spider-Man movie on your phone? Did you legally buy this Miles Davis album? Is this an image of a rainbow flag on your phone, my dear Russian citizen?

It's just a small step from here to constantly scanning all your local files on iOS, padOS and macOS because someone, somewhere might want to take a look at them.

It is closed source system. Nothing is stopping them doing it right now without telling it. And it might take years for someone to notice. All we can do is trust, and hope for their best intentions. Speculation is not strong argument in black box systems.

> It is closed source system. Nothing is stopping them doing it right now without telling it. And it might take years for someone to notice. All we can do is trust, and hope for their best intentions. Speculation is not strong argument in black box systems.

Yes, but ignoring the bad things that they tell you they're doing because they might be doing even worse things that they aren't telling you isn't a great stand to take.

If they move on into the speculated things, then we should take a stand. Current way is improvement what has been already happening.

Yes they can do it right now, but that would be illegal and couldn’t be used for any good. Now they make it legal- that’s the difference.

It has been legal for 10 years at least already. In-device scanning applies only into photos which are ending into the cloud.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title18/USCO...

The precedent is scanning on the user's device, yes. As far as I understand they are trying to limit the stream of subpoenas for users data by encrypting everything, without being called pedo enablers or something like that. But what they are doing is in effect showing the governments and anti-freedom activists that it is in fact possible to do this on users' devices, thus building a foundation for further expansion of such scanning to all data, sent or stored, on all apps, on the operating system level, and not only of their own initiative, but as a result of a legislation. And then why would you not fight other things that are currently considered to be societal ills? It's the next logical step. There are plenty of countries where you could get real prison sentences for writing or saying things, all with "well intentioned" justifications of course. We are steadily moving towards a "digital gulag", and Apple is paving the way. All of this also shows those who value freedom as pedo enablers, forcing other companies to also implement similar processes.

Sure, this particular move strictly improves privacy. But it has some terrible implications:

1. That there are circumstances in which it's okay to design an electronic device to work against its owner: an accusation is all it takes to ruin your life. Existing cloud services only scan their own computers, of course.

2. Because it provides more privacy than existing cloud services, people (esp. governments) might come to see this as an acceptable compromise between user privacy and law enforcement power.

I don't agree that it improves privacy.

Pre-emptive searches of ones private life should never be ok. Even if it's done by some "blind" algorithm.

And we should stand firmly that our phones and personal electronic devices should fall within the legal boundaries of private life.

We've already accepted some bad legal precedent with 3rd party doctrine and related loopholes, no expectation of privacy justifications, non negotiable ToSs that surrender ownership of data, and sharing of private data obtained under pretenses of it being required for whatever service you're signing up for.

With apple running privacy invading software on the users device, how long until a judge declares that there's no expectation of privacy by plugging information into your phone. After all apple is a 3rd party, and you were aware that they are scanning all files, which create new linked files owned and decrypt-able by apple.

There might be a short-term technical gain, but there's a long term legal and privacy loss.

That difference is a very significant one.

The scanning either happens on devices that the company owns, the cloud servers, or it happens on a device that the consumer owns, without the consumer being able to control it.

The consumer can control it by not enabling iCloud photo sync, right?

The consumer can't stop an application from automatically running without crippling an unrelated process? That doesn't sound right.

Apple already can run this server-side, on their own devices, and not by installing a backdoor on a device someone purchased.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com