Maybe they should lump its default state into something that already exists? E.g. assume that if you already have location access enabled for Photos (it does ask!), you've already indicated that you're okay with something about this identifying being sent to Apple whenever you take a picture.
My understanding is that Location Services will, among other things, send a hash of local WiFi network SSIDs and signal strengths to a database Apple maintains, and use that to triangulate a possible position for you. This seems loosely analogous to what's going on here with the compute-a-vector thing.
It could be tied to iCloud Photos, perhaps, because then you already know that your photos are getting uploaded to Apple.
(We could argue about it, but personally I think some kind of hash doesn't qualify.)
In fact, I'm willing to bet that if they'd added this feature and gated it behind iCloud Photos being enabled, we'd have different articles complaining about Apple making a cash grab by trying to get people to pay for premium storage. :P
As the article notes, this new feature is so "popular" that neither Apple nor the Apple media have bothered to mention it. AFAICT it's not even in Apple's document listing all the new features of iOS 18: https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-18/pdf/iOS_18_All_New_Features...
No, I didn't ask for a hypothetical set. I wanted the actual set of people.
I can try to turn down my natural inclination towards cautious phrasing, if you'd like? Get us on the same level. :D
Large set? Yes. Majority? No. CIRP says 2/3 of US Apple users pay for iCloud storage[0]. It's this popular for the exact reason you mentioned. Almost no one can fit their photo library into 5GB so they opt in to the cheap 50GB for $0.99/month. 50GB is enough for a lot of people.
[0] https://wccftech.com/paid-icloud-subscription-is-apples-most...
Well, I'll take back what I said about the majority. I do still think that the remaining 1/3 of users who don't have enough storage to turn on iCloud Photos qualify as what lapcat was asking for, though.
I know users who would prefer not to trust Apple for anything, and only pay for and use iCloud to backup the Desktop [and similar locations]. If they were to hear that their opt-in for iCloud means that Apple starts copying random things, they would not be happy.
[OT, I use Arq. But admit that iCloud is simpler, and it is not apples to apples.]
IMO, the fact that Apple backs up your keychain to the Mothership; and that this is a "default" behavior that will re-enable itself when shut off, reflects an attitude that makes me very distrustful of Apple.
Then why lie and mislead customers that your data stays local?
Apple patting itself on the back.
1)sending my personal data to them in any way is not a "feature." It's especially not a feature because what it sets out to do is rather unnecessary because every photo has geotagging, time-based grouping, and AI/ML/whatever on-device keyword assignments and OCR. I can open up my phone right now and search for every picture that has grass in it. I can search for "washington" and if I took a picture of a statue of george washington that shows the plaque, my iPhone already OCR'd that and will show the photo.
2)"minor" is not how I would ever describe sending data based off my photos to them, regardless of how much it's been stuffed through a mathematical meat grinder.
3)Apple is usually very upfront about this sort of thing, and also loves to mention the most minor, insignificant, who-gives-a-fuck feature addition in the changenotes for "point" system updates. We're talking things like "Numbers now supports setting font size in chart legends" (I'm making that up but you get the point.)
This was very clearly an "ask for forgiveness because the data we want is absolutely priceless and we'll get lots of it by the time people notice / word gets out." It's along the lines of Niantic using the massive trove of photos from the pokemon games to create 3d maps of everywhere.
I specifically use iOS because I value my privacy (and don't want my cell phone data plan, battery power, etc to be a data collection device for Google.) Sending data based off my photos is a hard, do-not-pass-go-fuck-off-and-die line in the sand for me.
It's especially shitty because they've gated a huge amount of their AI shit behind owning the current iPhone model....but apparently my several generation old iPhone is more than good enough to do some AI analysis on all my photos, to upload data for them?
Fuck everyone Apple who was involved in this.
It's very clearly not, since they've gone to huge lengths to make sure they can't actually see the data themselves see the grandparent post.
Hear hear. As if they can do this but not Visual Intelligence, which is just sending a photo to their servers for analysis. Apple has always had artificial limitations but they've been getting more egregious of late.
Then perhaps the system is of poor design and needs further work before being unleashed on users…
The problem with this feature is that we cannot verify that Apple’s implementation of the math is correct and without security flaws. Everyone knows there is security flaws in all software, and this implementation is not open (I.e. we cannot review the code, and even if we could review code we cannot verify that the provided code was the code used in the iOS build). So, we have to trust Apple did not make any mistakes in their implementation.
They could just have the OS batch uploads until a later point e.g. when the phone checks for updates.
The point is that this is all about risk mitigation not elimination.
Other than their entire reputation
https://www.csoonline.com/article/571797/the-apache-log4j-vu...
What was the other package that had the mysterious .?
You say this as if being shamed into patching the occasional vuln is equivalent to security best practices.
Open code which can be independently audited is only a baseline for trustworthy code. A baseline none of those three meet. And one which by itself is insufficient to counter a reflections on trusting trust style attack. For that you need open code, diverse open build toolchains, and reproducible builds. None of which is being done by those three.
Are you getting your ideas about security from the marketing department?
1: https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract... 2: https://www.wired.com/story/google-android-pixel-showcase-vu... 3: https://blog.morphisec.com/5-ntlm-vulnerabilities-unpatched-...
OSS is not the panacea that everyone touts it to be.
I'm not aware of any major open source projects that haven't experienced some level of auditing. Coverity alone scans everything you're likely to find in a distribution like Debian or Fedora: https://scan.coverity.com/o/oss_success_stories
> How many packages have you audited?
Several on which I depend. And I'm just one pair of eyeballs.
> Personally, I don't have the skillz to do that.
Then why are you commenting about it?
> OSS is not the panacea that everyone touts it to be.
I don't know who's touting it as a panacea, seems like a strawman you've erected. It's a necessary pre-requisite without which best practices aren't possible or verifiable.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/30/22410164/linux-kernel-uni...
A non-advertized feature, which is not independently verified, which about image contents? I would be prefer independent verification of their claims.
Hey! That’s wrong.
But I promise I won’t do anything wrong with it.
Well ok then.
And at that point all the opt-in dialogs in the world don't matter and you should not be running iOS but building some custom Android ROM from scratch.
>Let’s say you wanted to count how many of your online friends were dogs, while respecting the maxim that, on the Internet, nobody should know you’re a dog. To do this, you could ask each friend to answer the question “Are you a dog?” in the following way. Each friend should flip a coin in secret, and answer the question truthfully if the coin came up heads; but, if the coin came up tails, that friend should always say “Yes” regardless. Then you could get a good estimate of the true count from the greater-than-half fraction of your friends that answered “Yes”. However, you still wouldn’t know which of your friends was a dog: each answer “Yes” would most likely be due to that friend’s coin flip coming up tails.
Quantum computers will make breaking RSA and Diff-Hellman public key encryption easier. They will not effect things like AES, nor things like hashing:
> Client side vectorization: the photo is processed locally, preparing a non-reversible vector representation before sending (think semantic hash).
And for RSA and DH, there are algorithms being deployed to deal with that:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_Post-Quantum_Cryptography...
Anyway, back to the subject at hand; here's Apple on that subject:
> We use BFV parameters that achieve post-quantum 128-bit security, meaning they provide strong security against both classical and potential future quantum attacks
https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/homomorphic-encry...
Where are the boundaries in this scenario?
This is not how you launch a privacy-preserving product if your intentions are good, this is how you slip something under the radar while everyone is distracted.
The choice probably looks to them like:
A - play the game, give everyone a heads up, respond to all feedback, and never ship the feature
B - YOLO it, weather the storm, have people forget about it after the holiday, and go on with their life.
IMO giving up on having it widely used and just ship it turned off would be the best choice. But it's so obvious, there must be other ceitical reasons (good or bad) that's not an option.
"we had to sneak it out because people wouldn't consent if we told them" isn't the best of arguments
I'm asking: what does an opt in for that really look like? You're not going to be able to give the user enough info to make an educated decision. There's ton of risk of "privacy washing" ("we use DP" but at very poor epsilon, or "we use E2E encryption" with side channel data gathering).
There's no easy answer. "ask the user", when the question requires a phd level understanding of stats to evaluate the risk isn't a great answer. But I don't have another one.
Don't do things without my consent!!! How hard is it for Silicon Valley to understand this very simple concept?
Should Apple insist that every end user consents to the user agent string sent on every HTTP request?
You've succinctly identified a (maybe the) huge problem in the computing world today. Computers should not do anything without the user's command/consent. This seems like a hopeless and unachievable ideal only because of how far we've already strayed from the light.
Even Linux, supposedly the last bastion of user control... it's a mess. Do a fresh install and type ps ax at a shell. You'll see dozens of processes in the background doing god knows what. I didn't consent to any of this! The distribution's maintainer simply decided on my behalf that I want the computer to be running all these processes. This is totally normalized!
I don't expect my computer to ask for consent again and again for every byte sent over the network, but I do expect it to obtain my consent before generally accessing the network and sending bytes over the network.
To me, there's never been a case, except maybe in the first decade or so of the hobby/tinkering PC movement, where most users had this ability.
Should we just not use computers?
I don't think "should we just give up?" is a reasonable question to anything.
And getting downvoted for saying it, which is a fascinating incongruity.
If the world was a nightclub, “Silicon Valley” would be a creepy guy who walks up to every woman and says “You’re now dating me. To stop, you need to opt out using a form that I will do my best to make sure you can’t read.”
Choosing an Apple product is consent to trusting Apple. Continued use their products represents ongoing consent. This is an objective fact about all complex connected devices and it cannot possibly be otherwise.
Or signal of non-named stakeholders.
Yes you did. You purchased a computer, put this software on it and executed it. If you didn't want it to do whatever it's doing you should have determined what it would do beforehand and chose not to do it.
Even assuming that running the software implies my consent (which I would dispute), how do I make the decision about whether I should execute the software if I don't know what it is doing?
This all-or-nothing approach is also problematic. I should not have to allow the developer free rein to do whatever he wants, as a condition of using the software. This is why operating systems are slowly building granular permissions and consent checks.
I agree that all-or-nothing is problematic but even with a flexible permission system the best you can hope for is for all the things apps do to be itemized and set to sane defaults. But even then sanity is subjective. For every person like you (and me fwiw) who values privacy there are 1000 people who will never find the settings, don't care about privacy, and will wonder why stuff isn't working.
Ultimately privacy is similar to security in that it comes down to trust. If you don't trust your OS you're screwed. Your choices are try to exert as much control over it as possible, or don't use it.
How would that make any difference in this case? Presumably, you'll have long-ago checked the "allow general access to the network" setting, so you've given consent to the "send my photo data" action. Heck, surely connecting to the internet in the first place is implicit consent that you want to send stuff over the network?
Every NTP session leaks time desync information, which reveals—on modern hardware—relativistic travel, including long airplane trips.
Every software update leaks a fortune about what you run and when you connect.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask that people consent to these; I don’t think they can. I absolutely agree that photo metadata is different and at a way higher level of the stack.
Sure, you can ask users "do you want to use this". But why do we ask that? Historically it's user consent (knowingly opting in), and legal requirements around privacy. We don't have that pop up on any random new feature, it's gated to ones with some risk. There are questions to ask: does this technical method have any privacy risk? Can the user make informed consent? Again: I'm not pitching we ditch opt-in (I really don't have a fix in mind), but I feel like we're defaulting too quickly to "old tools for new problems". The old way is services=collection=consent. These are new privacy technologies which use a service, but the privacy is applied locally before leaving your device, and you don't need to trust the service (if you trust the DP/HE research).
End of the day: I'd really like to see more systems like this. I think there were technically flawed statements in the original blog article under discussion. I think new design methods might be needed when new technologies come into play. I don't have any magic answers.
Such as?
You're presenting it as if you have to explain elliptic curve cryptography in order to toggle a "show password" dialogue but that's disingenuous framing, all you have to say is "Allow Apple to process your images", simple as that. Otherwise you can argue many things can't possibly be made into options. Should location data always be sent, because satellites are complicated and hard to explain? Should we let them choose whether they can turn wifi on or off, because you have to explain IEEE 802.11 to them?
Then don’t run someone else’s software on your device. It’s not your software, you are merely a licensee. Don’t delude yourself that you are morally entitled to absolute control over it.
The only way to have absolute control over software is with an RMS style obsession with Free software.
Want a phone that doesn’t spy on you? Make it yourself. If you can’t, find some like-minded people and incentivise them (with money or otherwise) to make it for you. If they can’t (or won’t) perhaps contemplate the possibility that large capitalist enterprises might be the only practical way to develop some products.
To suggest that customers are "morally entitled" to a Samsung phone with zero tracking and zero telemetry is similarly absurd. If you don't like Samsung's product, don't buy it.
Why not? What gives McD the right to make such a decision unilaterally, other than might?
In fact, this is how disability legislation (for example) already tends to work. You don't get to tell disabled people to just go somewhere else, you have to make reasonable accomodations for them.
This cannot be a serious question.
Restaurant have a legal obligation to warn the customers. AKA "opt-in" which is NOT what Apple is doing. And it's the whole issue with their behavior.
That doesn't stop consumers from engaging in Info Wars style paranoia, and grandstanding about the aforementioned paranoia.
We can regulate these problems.
If the EU can regulate away the lightning connector they can regulate away this kind of stuff.
No EU regulation could regulate away all "moral" concerns over software. More specifically, they EU could regulate, but the overwhelming majority of software companies would either strip significant features out for EU customers, or exit the market altogether.
This isn't rocket surgery.
I mostly agree. I'm just annoyed "this new privacy tech is too hard to explain" leads to "you shouldn't do it". This new privacy tech is a huge net positive for users.
Also: from other comments sounds like it might have been opt-in the whole time. Someone said a fresh install has it off.
It's a positive compared to doing the same "feature" without the privacy tech. It's not necessarily a positive compared to not forcing the "feature" on the user at all.
The privacy tech isn't necessarily a positive as a whole if it leads companies to take more liberties in the name of "hey you don't need to be able to turn it off because we have this magical privacy tech (that nobody understands and may or may not actually work please don't look into it too hard)".
However, "my data is being sent off my device" is incorrect, as GP explained. Metadata, derived from your data, with noise added to make it irreversible, is being sent off your device. It's the equivalent of sending an MD5 of your password somewhere; you may still object, but it is not factually correct to say your password was transmitted.
Hackers love to have MD5 checksums of passwords. They make it way easier to find the passwords in a brute force attack.
> Hackers love to have MD5 checksums of passwords.
Hackers love not understanding analogies. :)
a) MD5 is reversible, it just cost GPU time to brute force
b) It is unproven that their implementation is irreversible
Sounds like my data is being sent off my device.
> It's the equivalent of sending an MD5 of your password somewhere
Sounds even worse lol
There is plenty of data on your device that isn’t “your data” simply due to existing on your device.
This is a much greater level of security than what you would expect from a bank, for example, who needs to fully decrypt the data you send it. When using your banking apps over HTTPS (TLS), you are trusting the CA infrastructure, you are trusting all sorts of things. You have fewer points of failure when a key for homomorphic encryption resides only on your device.
"Opting-in by default" is therefore not unsafe.
Anything that leaves my devices should do so with my opt-IN permission.
Or is it better to just trust that mathematics works and thus encryption is a viable way to preserve privacy and skip the dialog?
This would be easily solvable: On first run show a window with:
> Hey, we have this new cool feature that does X and is totally private because of Y [link to Learn More]
> Do you want to turn it on? You can change your mind later in Settings
> [Yes] [No]
You don’t use iCloud for anything? When you change phones do you start fresh or use your computer for backups? Do sync bookmarks? Browsing history?
Do you use iMessage?
edit: I will just add, even if we accept the argument that it's extremely secure and impossible to leak information, then where do we draw the line between "extremely secure" and "somewhat secure" and "not secure at all"? Should we trust Apple to make this decision for us?
Apple IS just another cloud provider / centralized backup service. It's not fundamentally different than others, and if you're not in select group of whatever the respectful term is for those who stay strictly inside apple ecosystem, you will have multiple clouds and multiple data sets and multiple backups that all interact with each other and your heterogeneous devices in unpredictable ways. Icloud will not help you with that any more than google cloud or Samsung cloud etc. They all want to own all of your stuff, neither is simply a hyper helpful neutral director.
Even if you use Microsoft Office or GSuite and save using the standard file picker, you can save to iCloud. iCloud has a native app for Windows and plug ins on Windows to sync browser bookmarks for Chrome, Edge and Firefox
And the alternative people are proposing are four or five self hosted solutions?
Iphone is "just another device". I don't feel Icloud is any better integrated with my Samsung note, than google is integrated with my iPhone - in fact, the opposite. Google, for example, CAN sync my photos across iphone and Android and windows devices. Whereas my wife knows the primeval scream from the home office every 6 months I try to claw photos out of apple's greedy selfish hands :-)
For people who JUST use iphone, sure, Icloud is the boss just like for people who JUST use e.g. Samsung galaxy the Samsung cloud is awesome. But that's not a high bar. I feel we are still lacking empathy here for people like original poster who may have more than one device in their lives.
And I wouldn’t have the same arguments if they weee using Google cloud. But they are concerned about “privacy” and trust Google?
But my argument is about people thinking that Apple or Google should care about the minuscule number of people who are hosting their own syncing services
Or as the GP suggested, forego the cloud entirely. iCloud and Apple’s built in iOS backup is not a magic bullet unfortunately.
No, if you enable Advanced Data Protection for iCloud[1], the photos stored in Apple Photos are end to end encrypted.
Yes, I always start with clean installs, both on iOS and on macOS. Sometimes I even restart fresh on the same device, as I make sure my hardware lasts. I don’t sync bookmarks, I keep them in Pinboard and none of them has any private or remotely identifiable information anyway. I don’t care about saving browser history either, in fact I have it set to periodically auto-clear, which is a feature in Safari.
To a first approximation, everyone in 2024 expects their data and settings to be transferred across devices.
People aren’t working as if it is 2010 when you had to backup and restore devices via iTunes. If I’m out of town somewhere and my phone gets lost, damaged or stolen, I can buy another iPhone, log into my account and everything gets restored as it was.
Just as I expect my watch progress to work when I use Netflix between my phone, iPad, Roku devices etc.
How many people are going to say in 2024 that they don’t want continuous cloud backup? You want Windows Vista style pop ups and permissions?
I don’t have Netflix but neither is that relevant to the point, you’re obviously and embarrassingly grasping at straws.
No one is arguing against continuous cloud backups, they’re arguing about sending data without consent. Which, by the way, is something Apple used to understand not to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
Apple’s OS are already filled with Windows Vista style popups and permissions for inconsequential crap, people have been making fun of them for that for years.
Isn’t it bad enough that I have a popup every time I copy and paste between apps?
For me, not really no. It reminds me I am copying information and not from some phishing app, I find it informative.
And I'm probably one of the few who actually click "Reject" to the cookie pop ups having to click no on 3742 legitimate consents.
The simple answer is everything should be opt-out. I'll opt-in if I require it because frankly, regardless to how Fort-Knox my data is $CORP still cannot be trusted.
Video conferencing instead of FaceTime are made via self-hosted Jitsi and if I am to brag all running on FreeBSD.
Out of Apple or Google I trust neither however will align with Apple more than Google. It's as close as I can get from not having data collected from mongrels.
Computers should not be sneakily doing things in the background without my commanding them to do so. But if they insist that the only way they can work is by doing things in the background, then I expect the computer to at the very least obtain my consent before doing those things. And computers should definitely not be exfiltrating anything over to the network without my explicit command to do so. This shit world we are living in where your computer just does whatever the application developer wants it to do rather than what the user wants it to do has to come to an end!
With PIR, an Apple phone recieving a phone call queries Apple's database with that phone number, but because it's using homomorphic encryption, Apple doesn't know the number that called despite looking it up in their database to provide caller id info, so they can't tie your phone number and the callers phone number together.
https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/homomorphic-encry...
"Ah, I see you care about privacy, but you own a phone! How hypocritical of you!"
I also don’t run a private chat server that people log into - I’m like most of the iPhone and Android using world
Owning a phone is a privacy failure by default in the United States.
Care to provide a pointer to what device they are using? I would absolutely get my real estate license for this.
Unfortunately, the knee-jerk reaction of many defense industry pundits (and VCs, for that matter) is that US intelligence is an unparalleled moral good, and the virtues of privacy aren't worth hamstringing our government's work. Many of these people will try to suppress comments like yours because it embarrasses Americans and American business by association. And I sympathize completely - I'm dumbfounded by the response from my government now that we know China is hacking our telecom records.
It's apparent it has been kept in place because of all of the value it provides to the 5 eyes.