There was zero confusion. Apple's new feature was universally rejected and if it cone to market will cause a severe loss of market share.
I don't like the feature. Putting this on the client device is dubious and should never have made it past the brainstorming stage.
Having said that, technology companies, big and small, are bound in the US to do this. By law. If anything Apple was by far the laggard of the bunch (with reporting counts magnitudes lower than peers, despite a larger customer base). As I said in another comment, no company can protect you from your government.
Much has been made about it being on device, which while a serious optics issue...the hot takes being given on here are manifestly absurd. Like, literally the company that holds all of your data, all of your passwords, all of your info and you need to invent slippery slopes to imagine up what they "might" do?
If they want to have their way with your data, they could have been doing it for decades.
They should never have announced two very different systems at the same time. Contrary to some of the insincere claims given in this very thread, there is massive disinformation and confusion about them. In the end I feel like 98% of the "the end is nigh!" comments are by long time Apple detractors who just see this glorious opening.
And while I still hope that Apple says "Mea culpa, we're just going to scan on the ingress to iCloud Photos", whatever they do in a month this is going to be completely forgotten.
Law requires reporting CSAM. They are not required to scan for it.
They are surely not required to scan client devices, and that was a foolishly, ill-considered plan (that I still would wager they will abandon), however they absolutely must scan iCloud Photos unless they were technically incapable of doing this. US law doesn't say "you go to jail if you don't", it says "you face enormous liability if you don't".
Those are not US companies but I've never heard of AWS, DO, etc. scanning people's storage either.
Except with an iPhone, you don't have a choice.
Pre-Snowden, that was insourced by the NSA.
Plenty of people believe that the Facebook and Instagram apps are recording audio 24/7 and target you ads based on the speech the apps hear. That doesn't stop people from using the apps.
A few years ago some of the most famous people in their world had their iClouds accounts hacked and had their naked photos leaked. That is a lot of people's worst fear. People literally commit suicide over this sort of thing. It didn't hurt the iPhone's market share.
People largely don't care.
1. The penalty of social ostracism due to the network effect. This is a severe punishment to most humans - particularly in today's socially disconnected world. Without these apps, a large # of people would not have any contact with much of their social circle - including family.
2. Learned helplessness. I think that many people have just given up. Even if they knew how to fight for their privacy, they see time and time again that money always wins.
This is old thinking. In the 90s and 00s it was miraculous to trade in a little privacy for some awesome free service on the internet. Google, Facebook and others became huge, and everyone has been influenced / manipulated by them and people are getting tired of having a family dinner conversation next to their smart speaker and seeing ads for six weeks for Depends diapers because someone told a bad joke at the dinner table.
Take all the paranoia and “muh privacy” around contact tracing or the European Green Pass: It’s as anonymous as it can be, yet millions of people argue against them across the political chasms that separate them. So yes: unless it becomes a divisive topic (which would be undesirable), this CSAM scanning will go away with the news cycle.
About your comment on celebrities’ “sex-tapes”. I guess it takes a certain kind of extroversion and (positive) narcissism to be one, and they’re expected to be gossiped about or to show their bodies in movies or photos so I don’t think those victims blinked that much - some like P. Hilton probably manufactured some porn to ride the wave. On the other hand, revenge porn did drive ordinary people to suicide because in this case the victims weren’t prepared or expected to let the public to see that.
Who knows how much it will matter in the end? But it is hard to argue it doesn't matter.
Other companies scan their servers instead. And what law banned E2E encryption?
This potentially means all of iCloud, not just photos, could start to use E2E encryption as well - which is fantastic.
They have to scan things that are not photos. What if the bad guys just zip their photos and upload that?
There also needs to be a solution to CSAM uploaded before NCMEC had a chance to tag it, especially to cases where the bad guys uploaded their CSAM and deleted it from their iPhone. What happens then, the bad guys get E2E and nobody can find them? There has to be a technical solution in mind for this, and everything I can think of has implications (Let the iPhone store hashes of deleted images? Would it be enough to scan also during download?)
IMHO, any serious attempt to find CSAM using Apple's client-side approach requires more scanning, and Apple not being forward on that makes me trust them less. Also, the moment they expand the scanning, we should think carefully if there actually are any privacy benefits.
What law do you think banned real E2E encryption?
And I said information. The hash matching is information.
[1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Security_Threat_Model...
I keep seeing this asserted, but there is never any legal citation. What exactly compels a software company to make their software product scan for CSAM?
I get that a service provider like cloud storage may need to scan what they themselves are storing to avoid possessing such material themselves. And iCloud could scan uploaded blobs all day to fulfill their legal department's recommendation.
But what exactly compels a software developer to include a content scanning function in code they distribute? And does this requirement also apply to the authors of rclone?
Apple only scans photos being uploaded to iCloud photos. Google scans. Facebook scans. Microsoft scans. Even tiny image hosting sites scan.
Apple decided to implement this functionality on device, but they could as easily (with much less fanfare and dissent) have placed it on the ingress to iCloud.
When iCloud scans stored files like Google Drive, nobody complains. It's understandable that risk adverse legal departments have come to the conclusion that doing such things is necessary, to avoid a company being in possession of trivially-discoverable CSAM. And from an individual security perspective, you should consider everything you upload unencrypted to be the subject of similar analysis.
If iOS were to encrypt all files before uploading, making any iCloud scanning mostly pointless, Apple would still not be running afoul of any law. Apple is making general software for end users, and encrypting files to upload would be doing the basic user diligence I alluded to. If users end up using the software to do bad things, those specific users are liable and not Apple.
As far as I am aware, there is no legal requirement for a software developer to modify their software to perform scanning of content it will process while being run by other people. But this is what is implied when you say that Apple is forced to do this by law.
Furthermore if this development was driven by iCloud worrying about legal liability from the combined system, then iCloud should be spun out into a separate company that cannot affect the development of the iOS software.
I'm tossing the mac and iphone because my phone is mine.
Yep. They just altered that deal. (Darth Vader quote deleted)
Disagree.
Something this ludicrously intrusive, over-reaching, reckless and trust-destroying is a dealbreaker for exactly the demographic of technology enthusiasts who influence others purchasing. It may not be instantaneous, but it would certainly propagate.
It's anecdotal, but I know zero people who are NOT reconsidering even lifelong loyalty to Apple over this.
It's just too crazy big a wrong, it's like the company just had a nuke go off inside it and is trying to pretend nothing happened.
They may as well have announced a partnership with Trump to put MAGA engravings on all future products, and then in the ensuing furore say they "regret the confusion", whilst carrying on with it regardless.
Though I suppose in that scenario they'd at least be targeting a significant market.
The same can't be said for the size of "sign me up for software-automated police raids" market. A market whose naiveity-induced initial "size" would rapidly shrink after the first few innocents went down, as they absolutely would.
I mean depending on the targets chat software preferences, could a malicious actor potentially ruin an Apple iOS users life just by sending them an image?
There are many troubling scenarios one could imagine. In fact, there is nothing but troubling scenarios.
It's not a can of worms so much as a wormhole, blasting an endless stream of worms at the speed of light.
I'm left not just questioning Apple's leadership, but - honestly - their mental faculties. Really.
No innocent person wants to walk around with an automated snitch in their pocket - I mean, hacking? Bugs? Oversights? Just the overall preponderance of fear that every millisecond you walk around with this thing, it - and its parent corporation and all the depersonalised machinations that go along with it - could be busy organising a blithely mistaken police raid on your family?
Say, because someone you've never met, sent you a message on that new chat app you forgot you installed, that autosaves all media to your iCloud? Or because someone stole the spare phone you keep in a drawer at work, used it for God-knows what and you didn't even notice it was gone? Or, maybe your teenage son got sent something from his teenage girlfriend who unbeknownst to any of them had her phones images uploaded and subsequently catalogued and flagged? Or any number of other entirely plausible scenarios that provide the very reason we have law enforcement protocols and procedures for reporting crimes and that are complex, nuanced and have evolved over hundreds of years and mountains of cases into a massive structure that exists primarily to protect the innocent from exactly this kind of freaking crazy shit?
And Apple expects people to pay them to carry the weight of all that around with them?
Putting it server side is categorically worse. Putting it in the client SDK for iCloud (architecturally speaking) rather than on cloud storage or in the OS is clearly the better correct technical choice, tying surveillance’s hands in a way server side or OS would not.
Most every client SDK routinely checks content before upload, it’s a best practice. Careful examination suggests this was engineered better than that practice.
(Note: even tech trade posts such as LWN, Stratechery, or Daring Fireball trying to write well about this need to sit down a minute and have how it actually works walked through for them, as do many in this community.)
FWIW, I agree with much of the rest of your post except the rationale for low reporting counts.
It's basically engineering with the goal of creating a perception of privacy rather than actual privacy. I don't really care that much about Apple policing what you upload to iCloud, but this disingenuous architecture does annoy me a bit, and there's also the added insult of having a device in your pocket that by design works against its owner (reminiscent of "treacherous computing"). These problems would go away if they just did the check on the server side.
The architectural reason is to do things the server couldn’t.
> You're uploading a photo to iCloud, encrypted with a key that Apple controls.
The architectural reason is so the server doesn’t have to be able to read the photo, and it need not be a key Apple controls.
Your first two sentences are the exact reason to do it on the client instead of on the server, such that it’s possible to have e2e encryption opaque to the server.
The list of apps is such a treasure trove. Signal? Clubhouse? Telegram?
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/complying...
I need to research what Signal does on iOS. My next canary is encryption of messaging apps other than iMessage.
Why? Putting it server-side means that it's only possible to examine the images that they claim they are targeting -- those going to the cloud. That seems like a much better and more private way to do it, because it's putting the surveillance "in their house", so to speak, instead of mine.
Upcoming contenders like Purism [1] and the Pine Phone [2] will start gaining a great deal more traction from this. Other SV firms will sense business opportunity..... If merely 5% of the TAM around mobile is willing to prioritize non-spying features that would be enough to stand up very healthy businesses.
It isn't like an iPhone is very customizable, repairable, or that usable with all the App restrictions Walled-Garden stuff.
I’ll bet you $500 to the charity of your choice that this won’t come to be. Set the terms on how you want to measure the outcome.
Since you want to have a friendly competition around "put your money where your mouth is" will look into whether or not Purism is accepting investments and what the terms are. AAPL valuations are pretty lofty right now at ~$149 a share if you'd be interested in the reverse :)
AAPL closed 90 cents short of an all time high share price today. Why isn’t the market pricing in the loss of market share?
It's a hit to their brand from technically knowledgable people for sure though. When someone asks their tech friend if they should buy Apple, more people will likely say, "yabut," or "nah." We'll see if that makes a difference in a year or three.
To me, it just feels icky. I'm sick of all the spying. I've been in computers since the Commodore. The current computer world is shit because of spying. It killed any passion I had left. It seems like no last vestige of privacy remains.
As for market share, this might barely register on people's radar outside the tech community beyond "Apple is trying to prevent child porn."
But I haven't seen any positive discussions about it, which is odd.
There are legitimate privacy concerns, and Hacker News users are right to be upset. But that's not an excuse to pretend like this issue is broadly understood.