mbdrake76

M68000 said:

Why are people so up in arms about this?  If you have nothing to hide why are you fighting Apple’s attempt to make the world safer from criminals and sick people?   This “ceo” made the amazingly stupid comment about “presumption of guilt”?   Well,  at least in the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty.   

I’m frankly amazed by the feedback in this forum in the last few days,  people who trust and love Apple and now don’t want to help Apple try to make the world safer.  

If you work for any large company I hope you know that any email, chat messages and files on company computers can be looked at and scanned by security and network admins.

if you want total privacy,  get rid of cloud storage and maybe go back to using a typewriter LOL

Apple does not want their products used for crime and is making an attempt to do something about it - what is so hard to understand?

Your employer has the right to monitor your activities at work - but certainly not at home.

My general concern is if things were to go wrong, and things can and do go wrong.  We're Apple users, we expect things to go wrong!  Due to a bug or hash mismatch (okay - the odds of it triggering a false positive are very low), it could be possible for completely innocent images to be flagged up incorrectly.  Apple hasn't exactly the most marvellous reputation for dealing with sensitive and urgent problems when accounts are closed for something the account isn't responsible for.

But, as many other people have said, it doesn't have to stop there.  The same tech can be used (or expanded) to check for other content that, say, governments can enforce on Apple to weed out and notify them of any infraction.  This has the capability (mind you, most things do) for abuse.

HOWEVER..

Adobe already do this with their cloud services.  This is outlined here:

https://www.adobe.com/uk/legal/lawenforcementrequests/childsafety.html

So those using Lightroom Desktop/CC or Lightroom Classic which syncs photos to the Adobe Creative Cloud are already having their photos scanned with CSAM technology when it's uploaded to their servers.  I've not seen any articles that mention this, or any feedback that Adobe has to say on it.

I can definitely see why Apple wants to implement CSAM on the iPhone (and perhaps give Apple a chance to say to law enforcement - hey, you don't need to crack the phone - we do the job for you!) - and it'd be one of the few companies that aren't already doing so (Google already do it through many of their products and services already - https://transparencyreport.google.com/child-sexual-abuse-material/reporting?hl=en), but it does somewhat go against their privacy matters mantra.

JMaille said:

The judge should have dismissed the lawsuit, he is wasting the time of the court system and taxpayer money.  The lawsuit is nonsense and those arguing otherwise are, from what I can see, simply attacking Apple.  “Buy” is the correct word.  One is exchanging something of value, money, for something else, a limited rights license allowing access to digital media where the terms of the access are specified by the license.  If “buy” is not the correct word, then it might as well be purged from the English language altogether because this doesn’t just apply to digital media delivered electronically.  It applies to almost everything you “buy.”  When you “buy” something you don’t get essentially unlimited rights to the object.  That purchase is limited by the contract terms of the purchase, the law, license terms, etc..  And it’s not just true for purchases of “digital goods” it applies to purchases of physical items as well.  When you “buy” a car you don’t get the right to disassemble and replicate the car and sell those copies.  When you “buy” a home you don’t get the right to just rip it down and put up a shopping center (at least not usually).  There are always, terms, conditions, laws, or licenses limiting your rights with regards to anything you “buy.”

This is absolutely not a frivolous case and isn't wasting the court's time (as evidenced by a judge).   How many people honestly believe "buy" is simply a case of licensing?  I'm willing to bet your average consumer won't.  They'll look at it and believe they will own that movie in perpetuity - being able to stream and download as many times as they like.  Having read the terms laid out by Apple, it's a confusing mess.  It's been in dire need of an update for years.

This isn't a case of picking on Apple - this is something that is by-product of having an ID associated with purchased content being taken away.  In this case, it happens to be Apple.  That said, Amazon has been sued for the same thing (https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/28/amazon-says-users-dont-own-content-bought-on-prime-video) although I'll be damned if I can find the outcome of the case.

hodar said:

So, basically Parallels remains a waste of money for anyone who bought an M1 Mac.

Rehash MY user case; which is probably a significant number of user cases.  Why did I buy Parallels?  Why pay $$ for this program?

So, I can have the CAPABILITY to boot, and run WindowsXP, Windows 7 and Windows10 disk images, and either run programs on my Mac that are not available outside of the Windows environment, so I can play old games I purchased before I switched to the Apple ecosystem, and so I can play more games (emulation mode, which is surprisingly good) on my Mac, and play online with my friends who use PC games.  Open Parallels, run any version of Windows I chose, launch Steam and play online games with my friends (games that are not available on the Mac.

For work, Excel on Windows has the capability to allow me to write scripts in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA); for reasons I don not understand, these advanced libraries are simply not available for the Mac community.  So, while my Excel workbooks have ~60,000 lines of VBA to allow it to link into the corporate database and dateline quality assessment info, I cannot do the same thing with my MSFT Office license for Mac.  So, I have 2 different licenses.

Now, I have no choice but have multiple computers at home.  Because programs that USED TO work flawlessly, no longer function at all.

You can still buy Intel Macs.  And for me, Parallels is not a waste of money on an M1 Mac.  I use a Debian 10 ARM VM under Parallels for work purposes and it's not had a single impact on my work or processes.  All the Microsoft apps I need for work are either Universal Binaries already, or awaiting to be (so are being run via Rosetta 2).  Apart from some performance issues relating to Rosetta 2 and anti-virus apps (one of which has now been fixed), there has been very frew issues running an M1 Mac in an existing business environment.

eightzero said:

Query: if you bought HD movies on iTunes before they offered 4k, you get the free upgrade to the 4k version of those?

Depends entirely on the studio.  Disney hasn't offered 4K content at all on the iTunes platform.

It's pity they're not putting storage capacities in the terabytes on these things to allow you to download all your iTunes movie purchases - because if you don't download them, and the content provider pulls it from the iTunes store - you're screwed.  Just had a title removed from my library that I bought in 2015 for this reason.  As I have 1.75Tb worth of movies and that Apple storage is incredibly expensive, keeping them in the "cloud" seems the only reasonable way of doing it.  But no. 

And you don't get any recompense or any notification whatsoever from Apple prior to the title being withdrawn.  It makes buying movies from them a massive risk (even worse with other digital stores such as Amazon or Google Play as you don't get to download them as a file as you do with iTunes - assuming one has a computer, of course).  Subscriptions to Apple TV+, Netflix, Amazon, Disney, etc. are fine - you know what you're getting and you're willing to accept that you'd lose access to them if you stopped subscribing or if their licensing no longer permits them to stream the title. 

So for me, the Apple TV has lost its appeal somewhat.