unityByFreedom

> Scanning on-device is compatible with Apple never having access to your data in an unencrypted format.

Only if you exclude the following network transmission, which is the easy part that needs no special code. The privacy concern comes in with those two things together. So yeah if you take away one half of a bad thing such that the bad thing no longer becomes possible, it's not bad anymore. The concern is the whole process, on-device scanning being the key not-yet-implemented component.

> If Apple has a legal obligation to ensure that iCloud does not store CSAM/etc. then either you have to scan on device before upload _or_ you have to store iCloud data without E2E encryption.

Apple does not have that legal obligation. If they can't decrypt the content on their servers, then their only response to a government-issued warrant would be to hand over encrypted data.

Also, CSAM is not the concern. The concern is this would be used against dissidents in authoritarian countries. On-device scanning takes us a step towards becoming one and further empowering the existing ones.

You understand the person to whom you're replying was nonsensically arguing that cloud-scanning is worse than on-device scanning, right?

On what basis? I'd really like to hear your justification. Please include as many details as possible.

You'd have a hard time verifying that said on-device scanning would only have been run only on iCloud-uploaded content.

Once the feature exists your local data might become accessible to a government warrant, which would make the iPhone the opposite of a privacy oriented device.

If it's only for iCloud uploaded data they can simply do the scanning there. There's no reason to use customer's CPU/battery against them.

The point of encryption is obviously privacy.

But they backtracked on on-device scanning. So that's not happening unless I missed something. There was a huge outcry when they proposed that.

Messages sent through Apple's systems are not "on-device" scanning. Different topic.

> I see this all or nothing argument when discussing new stuff.

When did it become popular to start selling beta products? Did it begin when we all bought into social media?

Apple produced a computer, music player and phone that were a polished step up from what was happening before: build-your-own computer, music with insufficient storage and crap interfaces, and blackberries that only targeted business people.

Underpromise and overimpress me. Enough with this overpromising-because-have-to as if that's the only way to innovate or get investment. It isn't the only way and I wish investors would do a little more due diligence to get behind innovators who know what they are doing, not just throwing money at cool things saying they'll be ready by the end of the year over an 8 year period.

> Those passengers knew what they were signing up for when they boarded that plane together with a Windows user.

The good thing is, once a fix for this is pushed, even laptops in cargo holds will get it. Win win!

Points/karma acquired in-game that can be exchanged off-app for crypto. Since crypto is so easy to exchange with no verification of buyer/seller needed, you can keep moving around how that works to make Apple's task of reviewing your apps more and more complex until you find a way to do it that they overlooked.

Everyone has faced this to some degree. You want to get your work or message out there and it gets shut down by the powers that be. The question is how to encourage a level playing field. You could have the government step in, however, that comes with its own issues. I wouldn't want a larger entity who has guns being the decision maker.

Apple has been the vanguard of selling software for years. People don't buy desktop software anymore, and it wasn't all that successful to begin with. They do buy software on phones, though, and Apple enables an ecosystem that might not otherwise exist. It's not clear to me that Google needs paid apps. They were happy with ads before that.

> Apple doesn’t ask for or take a mandatory cut of in-app money transfer services.

I suppose you mean like when I use Venmo or my bank. Okay, but I can't readily use those to buy other in-app things like subscriptions, right? So it's consistent.

It is another form of payment. What's to get?

There may be an anti-trust case against Apple, but if there is, hanging it on crypto is not the place to do it.

Personally I am more concerned about Comcast's monopoly and would prioritize the FTC to look at that, but that's been out of style since 2014.

> Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as part of our appeal.

> Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief.

A legal brief would go to a judge. This sounds like an appeal written by a lawyer, submitted on behalf of one company to another. Not the same thing.

Or maybe there was a legal case and they filed a brief. Then it would be a judge who decides whether the brief is convincing, not Apple.

Isn't it obvious that making crypto payments easier allows devs to circumvent Apple's cut?

I don't think people would accept any percentage taken of crypto exchanges.

Let's not beat around the bush. This is Apple protecting the way it earns money, not trying to levy fines on crypto to make more money. I'm pretty sure they understand that this decision makes them unpopular with some people. Their bet is that it preserves the model where there is still a functional review system for code that runs on your phone.

> features that should be a God-given right.

What features are you asking for that apply to this thread?

You do not have a god given right for them to follow your policies.

> They will always piss people off as long as they charge them for a product that should be included with their computer by-default.

The goalposts move with every comment. You don't have the right to determine what parts of their products are free vs. paid.

A review of the above three exchanges:

"Apple doesn't have dedicated support for established devs"

"They do, I was in it"

"Why don't they support all devs this way? Apple sux."

Added:

"They do, you get 2 free support tickets"

"Oh they do? It still wouldn't fix every problem. Apple still sux."

In this lose-lose environment, I can only expect Apple will simply end up pissing people off no matter what it does.

I realize we all know this but I've never seen it expressed so succinctly in a thread.

Hahaha. Yes some stodgy bureaucrats surely know more than designers of OS and software. Please. There's definitely a gap to bridge but let's not pretend one side knows everything.

Government going for the win over social media by levying fines. It's a bold move Cotton, let's see how it pays off. Surely government will save us from social media!

> The conflict of interest is probably more actionable but the official role could make him subject to being an insider.

What? No. Kardashian was fined because she advertised crypto without disclosing she was paid for the ad. Presumably these celebrities already made those disclosures, or it's understood since everyone knows TV ads are paid.

Lol on what grounds could they be held liable? Arguably, people who worked at FTX didn't all know SBF loaned out customer deposits. Even SBF himself claims to not have realized the extent of it. The truth of SBF's claims should be determined by an investigation, however I don't see cause to go after these celebrities. They were paid to make general statements by the company, they didn't sign financial statements.

If there is some indication they knew it was a scam, then sure go after them. But you can't just seize everyone's emails because you think there's a chance they were involved. You need probable cause.

Why? Better payday if you get fired.

That seems too easy to game.. how many flags does it take?

Just gonna end up censoring what he doesn't like

Good point, and thanks for sharing Starline. I hadn't heard of that.

I'd love to see a "Minority Report"-like interface in the form of Starline + Kinect. Oh, and with electronic ink to save my eyes. Thank you, future.

Best comment I saw on this was it's like trying to reinvent VR.

We already have VR. Incrementally, maybe there will be some sort of popular VR chat down the road, but it's just too expensive at this point for mass adoption. The distance between getting a Twitter account and hopping on the Metaverse is over $500.

Sensational headline? It sounds indefinite, not permanent.

You're still responsible if your lane change causes an accident.

I don't see how it's worth $1. Do you trust the system to properly gauge the speed of a vehicle accelerating to pass you? If not then you need hands and eyes at the ready.

It isn't a bypass. The data was legally obtained and sold.

Warrants are needed when the requesting entity doesn't have access.