Apple_Bar

melgross said:

I’m so tired of hearing about Air Tags. This isn’t going to be a big product, particularly if they’re $39 each as the new Samsung product is. I just don’t see that many being sold at that price. Even the third party products at $29 aren’t doing that well.

pfarfour said:

Sorta off topic but can someone point me somewhere that can educate me on charging options for iPhone 12?  Seems that charging has gotten to be overly complicated and I just want to understand what accessories maximize or limit charging before purchasing.  Just want to make sure I make an educated purchase when and if I upgrade my current charging options.  I'm pretty tech savvy but damn charging profiles optimized for various devices is complicated.  Thanks in advance! 

foregoneconclusion said:

FYI to EFF: totalitarian governments already have their populations under surveillance. You're not thwarting totalitarianism by having Apple remove the CSAM hash scanning capability. Citizens of China, Russia, Turkey etc. use smartphones and are still under totalitarian control regardless. 

dewme said:

I have not turned ADP on because I have a mix of devices, some with older versions of iOS, macOS, and iPadOS. I’m not sure how ADP handles backward compatibility so I’m not going to do anything that’ll cripple my older devices. 

For now I’ll just add another layer of tinfoil and wait for a very clear and unambiguous article that describes all of the potentially breaking changes that turning ADP on causes to all devices- old and new. This is something that I cannot afford to be wrong about. 

shamino said:

Before jumping into "Apple is taking orders from the Chinese government" theories, there may be other perfectly reasonable reasons for this change.  Like, for instance, the fact that AirDrop has been used as a medium for sending obscene images to strangers.  Some news stories:

• https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/mesa-teen-sent-violent-pornographic-content-to-high-school-students-via-apples-airdrop-feature-police-say
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-12/cyber-flashing-porn-sent-to-iphones-using-airdrop/11092974 
• https://news.yahoo.com/video-students-having-sex-airdropped-202830068.html 
• https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/man-sends-penis-pic-to-all-passengers-on-plane-gets-outed-on-tiktok/ 

By preventing phones from being set to "Everyone" at all times, you block most of this, since the attackers will only be able to send to people who already have him in their contacts list.

FWIW, I leave my devices set to "Contacts Only" precisely because I don't want any possibility of a stranger sending me anything.  I can share content with my friends and relatives, and that's plenty.

macxpress said:

Panner_Nudding said:

freeassociate2 said:

apple4lizife said:

It’s just apple trying to deflect what they did in china,   to get ahead of the Curve to try to avoid criticism going forward ..  Nobody cared about airdrop feature for all of sudden “let’s limited it to 10mins” 

My guess is you’ve missed all the articles about people being AirDrop bombed with alarming or intentionally disturbing material in small or closed spaces. 

My guess is you missed the setting to turn airdrop off or on for contacts only. 

My guess is most people don't do this and it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. I love everyone's tinfoil hat theories though. 

davidw said:

flydog said:

Gaby said:

And people complained about Apples system… I have to say that I am against any weakening of encryptions or privacy protections but in terms of which method is the lesser of two evils Apple’s solution is the less intrusive. The language in this Bill truly is terrifying. I have to say that considering that the police constantly complain that they don’t have the resources to deal with crimes as it is I find it farcical that more and more legislation continues to be added. Not to downplay the significance of sexual abuse in any way but one has to be pragmatic and decide whether the the attack on privacy is justified. It seems to me police forces do less and less detection and real crime fighting and are becoming merely administrative in their roles. 

Apple’s method is not less intrusive because Apple would be scanning all communications. The EU proposal requires a court order, and affords affected individuals the right to challenge the order.  

The language is only “terrifying” if you rely on headlines, and don’t both to read the actual bill. 

But Apple was only scanning unencrypted photos that was in (or going to be in), their customers iCloud photo library. There is no expectation of privacy when storing unencrypted photos in a third party server. The big stink made was that Apple was planning to do the scanning on their customers devices, with software installed on those devices, instead doing it when the photos are in their iCloud servers. Like how Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook is doing it and how Apple is most likely doing it now.

Apple did have a plan to provide parents of minors a tool to help them monitor their kids iMessage activity, by scanning the message for any images or wording for adult contents, before it's sent or after it's received and then blurring them out and notifying the parents for approval. But nothing got reported to the government or some "save the children" advocacy organization. Only the parents were notified.

Apple was not forced to do any of this scanning by the government. It was voluntary, as it should be.

So do you think the group behind the "Pegasus" spyware, is going to get a court order, when they find a way (and they will) break the backdoor encryption key, that all encrypted messages must have, under this proposal?

Plus the "court order" is only for the government to obtain the encrypted messages, in order to bring charges against the sender or receiver. The message service providers can not charge the customers for breaking the law. And the government can not, without proof that a crime has been committed. By law (under this proposal)  all message services must scan all their messages for CSAM, regardless if it's suppose to be "encrypted end to end", where there is some expectation of privacy. And then report any violators to the government. This is when  the government must get a court order to obtain those messages, unencrypted. You seem to be implying that the government needs to get a court order, in order for individuals messages to be scanned. If this proposal passes, it would make "end to end encryption" an oxymoron or false advertising, in the EU.

atonaldenim said:

I have to say I agree that Apple’s ban on any mention of purchases or accounts outside the App Store does harm Apple users. 

As an Apple user wouldn’t you want to know if there is a cheaper option available before making an in-app purchase? I know I do!