tylersdad

newisneverenough said:

How Apple didn’t see these privacy and security threats to their users and to society is mind boggling. 

StrangeDays said:

tylersdad said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

tylersdad said:

It starts with examining personal pictures ostensibly to prevent child exploitation, but where does it lead? Where does it end?

Apple isn't examining personal pictures. No one is examining anything. Your photo has a unique number based on how the pixels are laid out, that number is compared to a database of numbers representing images for an exact match. False positives are one in a trillion. This is overly-simplified, but that's the basic overview. There isn't some algorithm looking for nudity in images.

Where does it end? It already has ended. The tool exists, it took years to develop, it is rolling out this fall. There is no "next."

Um, how do they look at the pixels if they don't examine the image? Do you have any idea how this technology even works? It doesn't appear so. To look at the pixels compare them to pixels in reference images, they must open both images. If they are opening the image and reading the pixels, then they are examining personal pictures. Are you trying to be obtuse purposely? 

Your answer to "where it ends" is beyond ridiculous. There is always a next. There are always enhancements. It's the nature of technology. 

Sorry but you’re ignorant. A hash is representation of the image but is not the image. Much like TouchID stores a numeric string that represents your fingerprint, but is *not* your fingerprint. FaceID does this too. 

zimmie said:

elijahg said:

"Confusion" was not the issue. Apple of course would say it is because to do otherwise would be an admission that the feature was toxic and entirely contradictory to their public privacy stance. Privacy organisations and governments weren't "confused", they could foresee the potential privacy consequences. Apple knows full well the pushback was due to their public "what's happens on your phone stays on your phone" stance, the polar opposite to scanning phones for CSAM - and the potential for further encroachment on privacy.

Confusion absolutely is the issue. Today, Apple employees have the technical capability to view images you upload to iCloud. With the CSAM scanning, they would no longer have the technical capability to do so. That would be a substantial improvement to the current situation.

beowulfschmidt said:

AppleInsider said:

The EU's plan goes further in that it also looks for organized crime and terrorist activity.

I hate to be the one to say "I told you so", but I bloody well told you so.

When the capability exists, overreaching governments will exploit it.

Spotlight literally exists to index all content on the phone. That capability has existed for over a decade. Why haven't we seen any governmental attempt to force reporting if that index shows any document or message containing "bomb" and "president" or "minister", for example?



I still think they should carve iCloud photo sync off into a separate tool, and make it clear the CSAM scanning is only part of that tool. If you want no CSAM scanning on your device, just delete the ability to sync photos to iCloud. Done. Solves everybody's complaints.

killroy said:

tylersdad said:

killroy said:

tylersdad said:

rob53 said:

22july2013 said:

Exciting times. I've been arguing for this for years and that's why so many people hate me on this forum.

So you believe a developer has every right in the world to post their apps for free on the Apple App Store? Give me one legitimate reason why Apple should be required to host these apps for free. Apple doesn't charge for free apps but could start doing that if they wanted to. Apple could also start charging developers to even put their apps on the Apple App Store and if these stupid laws pass, I'm all for Apple doing that. There's no way anyone could force Apple to host things on their servers for free. It would be like me hosting your email server on my hardware, which I maintain, for free. Get a grip, I'd never do that and I doubt any company would do that. This shows how stupid these laws are.

Of course, if you want to have your own payment system, then be prepared for Apple to start charging you a hosting fee for every download and install of that app. That's only fair isn't it?

No. As a developer, I feel I should not be limited to Apple's way of distributing apps to my users. 

It's as simple as that. I won't use their infrastructure and they won't get any money from me (other than my developers subscription). 

You well pay for use of their server. And you well be kicked off if your app has malware.

Why would I use their server? My customers are able to download apps from my website and install them. 

We are talking about iOS app store. Not the Mac app store.

ihatescreennames said:

tylersdad said:

mark fearing said:

I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...

I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 

Microsoft wasn't forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows due to their position giving them an unfair advantage. Microsoft was shown to have been exhibiting monopolistic behavior, that is, they were using their position in the OS market to give their browser an unfair advantage. In other words, Micrsoft wasn't forced to make changes simply due to their position, it was their behavior that brought on the forced changes. Epic was unable to show that Apple was exhibiting monopolistic behavior.

aderutter said:

Maybe https://inhope.org/EN/articles/what-is-image-hashing will help the non-techies?

Note that image hashing is not reversible so one cannot use an image hash to create another image that matches, or be used to modify an existing image so that it matches the original image.

Also, nobody is forced into using iCloud. I for one assumed this kind of system had already been in place for years! 

cpsro said:

Working remote creates a gigantic communication barrier like there never was before. Case closed.

killroy said:

tylersdad said:

killroy said:

tylersdad said:

killroy said:

tylersdad said:

rob53 said:

22july2013 said:

Exciting times. I've been arguing for this for years and that's why so many people hate me on this forum.

So you believe a developer has every right in the world to post their apps for free on the Apple App Store? Give me one legitimate reason why Apple should be required to host these apps for free. Apple doesn't charge for free apps but could start doing that if they wanted to. Apple could also start charging developers to even put their apps on the Apple App Store and if these stupid laws pass, I'm all for Apple doing that. There's no way anyone could force Apple to host things on their servers for free. It would be like me hosting your email server on my hardware, which I maintain, for free. Get a grip, I'd never do that and I doubt any company would do that. This shows how stupid these laws are.

Of course, if you want to have your own payment system, then be prepared for Apple to start charging you a hosting fee for every download and install of that app. That's only fair isn't it?

No. As a developer, I feel I should not be limited to Apple's way of distributing apps to my users. 

It's as simple as that. I won't use their infrastructure and they won't get any money from me (other than my developers subscription). 

You well pay for use of their server. And you well be kicked off if your app has malware.

Why would I use their server? My customers are able to download apps from my website and install them. 

We are talking about iOS app store. Not the Mac app store.

What difference does that make? An app is an app. An iPhone or an iPad is just another type of computer. 

iPhone or an iPad apps are not on the MAC app store also. Mac apps are Pro apps and are not all down loaded from the Mac app store.

mark fearing said:

tylersdad said:

mark fearing said:

I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...

I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 

If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.