Exactly, I don't want my shit sent all across the internet without my explicit prior consent, period. No amount of explanation can erase Apple's fuck-up.
Google, on the other hand, uploads photos to their server and does the analysis there.
There is the infamous case of the parents who Google tried to have arrested after they used their Android device to seek medical assistance for their child during lockdown. Their doctor asked them to send images of the problem, and Google called the police and reported the parents for kiddie porn.
> “I knew that these companies were watching and that privacy is not what we would hope it to be,” Mark said. “But I haven’t done anything wrong.”
The police agreed. Google did not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil...
Google refused to return access to his account even after the police cleared him of wrongdoing.
It's sort of the crime of "contempt of court", but after the fact: receiving a judge's prescription about how you must interpret a law during a case, but then going right back to using a different interpretation when you leave court.
This is why I constantly work to help people reduce their dependence on Google. Screw that. If anyone ever tells you that they rely on Google for anything, show them this article.
But I definitely live in fear of Google fucking up and disabling my account.
If that were true, the whole homomorphic encryption stuff would be pointless.
> Google, on the other hand, uploads photos to their server and does the analysis there.
The comment you're replying to (and the whole sub-thread in fact) isn't about if how Apple is doing it is the best/worst way, but rather before they do it, they don't ask for permission. Regardless of how they technically do it, the fact that they don't ask beforehand is what is being argued about here.
(I agree this is the point in contention, I just don’t understand it).
The parents Google tried to get arrested in the story above do not agree.
> When Mark’s and Cassio’s photos were automatically uploaded from their phones to Google’s servers, this technology flagged them. Jon Callas of the E.F.F. called the scanning intrusive, saying a family photo album on someone’s personal device should be a “private sphere.” (A Google spokeswoman said the company scans only when an “affirmative action” is taken by a user; that includes when the user’s phone backs up photos to the company’s cloud.)
Google not only automatically uploaded their images to their server, it analyzed those images and reported the users to the police for kiddie porn based on a single false positive.
If you care about not sending photos to Google, it's pretty obvious how to not have that happen.
IMO, Google is not the bad guy here, although when it was explained to them that the photos were legitimate, they should definitely have reenabled the account.
I'm OK with Google scanning photos that I send to them that will be stored on their servers. Honestly, how can they not?
I never enable cloud backups, because it means my shit is sent somewhere.
Then they proceed to claim those automatic backups are an "affirmative action" that justifies them scanning the contents of your images as well.
When setting up a new phone (and many times thereafter) they prompt you to enable photos backup. It's not on by default if I remember correctly.
You keep saying that, but it remains false. The parents explicitly opted in to sending their photos to Google.
About weekly it prompts me with a huge popup whether I want to continue without backup, with "enable backup" selected by default. If I deselect this I'm prompted with another popup asking me to back up specific selected photos. If I misclick either of these (which is easy, since they pop up after briefly showing my photos which I'm actively trying to tap on), then Google will start hoovering up all my photos without confirmation.
Their "consent" form is user-hostile and it's disingenuous to hold it as an example of Google protecting privacy.
Pro tip: install Google Gallery which (ironically) is effectively a de-Googled Photos. Unfortunately it's also stripped down in other ways but it suffices for simply viewing photos on your own device.
Of course maybe that question has its own answer. Apple markets itself as the last personal computing company where you are the customer not the product so they are held to a higher standard.
What they should do Is do the processing locally while the phone is plugged in, and just tell people they need a better phone for that feature if it’s too slow. Or do it on their Mac if they own one while that is plugged in.
Perhaps it's not as visible because Google hasn't defaulted to opt-in for most of these? Or because a lot of it is B2B and Google-internal (e.g., a differential-privacy layer on top of SQL for internal metrics)
[edit]: this link was a very vague press release that doesn't say exactly how Google uses it: https://security.googleblog.com/2019/06/helping-organization...
Most people I know of wouldn't care about such a feature other than a breathless sort of "Wow, Apple tech!" So they are building something which is intended to win over privacy conscious people, kudos to them, everyone stands to benefit. But the most basic custom in that subculture is consent. So they built something really great and then clumsily failed on the easiest detail because it is so meaningless to everyone except that target audience. To that audience, they don't bother criticising google or microsoft (again) because it goes without saying that those companies are terrible, it doesn't need to be said again.
Just because it can’t be “appreciated” by all users doesn’t mean it’s only “for” a small sub-group.
It seems to me they’re just trying to minimise the data they have access to — similar to private cloud compute — while keeping up with the features competitors provide in a less privacy-respecting way. Them not asking for permission makes it even more obvious to me that it’s not built for any small super privacy-conscious group of people but the vast majority of their customers instead.
The issue isn't slowness. Uploading photo library data/metadata is likely always slower than on-device processing. Apparently the issue in this case is that the world locations database is too large to be stored locally.
What kind of capacity can ROM chips have these days? And at what cost?
But now that we're talking about these differences, I'd say that Apple users are notoriously complacent and defend Apple and their practices. So, perhaps in some part it is in an attempt to compensate for that? I'm still surprised how we've now accepted that Apple receives information pretty much every time we run a process (or rather, if it ran more than 12 hours ago, or has been changed).
You think Trump is bad? Well, Putin is worse. You think Putin is bad? Kim Jong Un is worse.
Sending everything to a server is, however, how Google's service works.
You don't need any encryption to process locally.
Apple handles those tasks on the users own device(s) for privacy reasons.