auxio

elijahg said:

MplsP said:

gatorguy said:

MplsP said:

How many of the people screaming about CSAM have Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and google apps on their devices and an Amazon or google smart speaker in their home?

Implying Apple is not any worse than "everyone else" is not a ringing endorsement. 

xyzzy-xxx said:

MplsP said:

How many of the people screaming about CSAM have Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and google apps on their devices and an Amazon or google smart speaker in their home?

I won't use a smart speaker, but regarding Facebook & co. you are comparing apples to oranges – just don't give these apps access to your photos etc. and think about what you are uploading and you will be fine.

my point was not comparing Apple to any of these other corporations. My point was that it's a bit hypocritical to be completely ok with all of these other 'services' snooping, scraping, monetizing and otherwise surveilling your personally life and then to start screaming about Apple trying to do something to protect the most vulnerable people in society in a way that preserves people's privacy.

Everyone makes the obligatory statement that they're against exploiting children, but somehow they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is. But they are willing to give up their privacy for the ability to brag about their vacation, post conspiracy theories and snoop on their neighbors. I find it a very sad commentary on people's values.

That's because people make a choice to use FB/IG/Twitter etc, they make a choice to lose privacy over the photo they post, and they are posting that photo to someone else's device. Plus, they agreed to scanning for "objectionable material" when they signed up. No service - not even Google or FB, scans the photos on your own device. Apple was going to install spyware on people's own devices without permission, and with no choice. No one agreed to Apple scanning devices for CSAM when they bought their phones. 

Ceasing to use FB/IG/Twitter doesn't cost a penny. Ceasing to use an iPhone could cost a lot of cash, especially if you are deeply invested in the ecosystem. 

You completely missed conveniently ignored the part where Apple wouldn't scan the photos unless they're uploaded to iCloud.  So it really wasn't a choice about not using an iPhone, it was a choice about not using iCloud to store your photos.  Same as the choice to not use other hosted services like FB/IG/Twitter.

lkrupp said:

asdasd said:

crowley said:

Illusive said:

So they want us to buy untested rubbish so then can alter it as they see fit with every update? No, thanks. Long live sandboxing!

Untested rubbish?  What is this based on, the blog post didn't mention anything about testing?  Rogue Amoeba are a solid developer with a great track record, and they definitely test their software.  

He is talking about Apple testing, but that is perfunctory. Just to see if the app works and isn't using private API or breaching privacy. 

Developers using unsupported APIs has been problematic for decades. Developers have hooked into macOS without using a supported API to provide some feature or function. macOS gets updated and the user finds out their app has ceased to function because the hook no longer works. Developer is forced to update and/or remove the feature, then rage at Apple. Lather-rinse-repeat. And who does the user blame? “It worked before the update, now it doesn’t, therefore it’s Apple’s fault. Fix it NOW, Apple!”

In recent years Apple has locked down macOS more and more (kernel extensions, browser extensions, etc.) so we see it less. Developers rage.

I'll give you a counterexample to the argument that no developer ever needs to use unsupported APIs.

I worked at a company which made wall-mounted touch displays that were used in education.  Since they're used in classes with smaller children (or special needs students), we needed to put the toolbar at the bottom of the window so that children (or people in wheelchairs) could reach it.  There was no way to do this with the standard Mac toolbar.  We could have just created our own toolbar, but we wanted the app to have the standard look and feel of a Mac app (especially since Apple changes it slightly on every new version of MacOS).  We talked to Apple about it, showed them photos, and they actually provided us a private API to do what we needed.

Sometimes there genuinely are cases where you need to do something which isn't possible with the standard APIs.

gatorguy said:

auxio said:

AppleInsider said:

WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."

It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/website-creation/webm/
WebM is open-sourced, no cost, easier to deploy, and mobile device friendlier.

You don't need to run the ad campaign, I understand the business model.  Google has essentially devalued every technology they've encountered by cloning it, open sourcing their cloned version, giving it away to the world, and looking like a hero.  They can do this because they're an advertising company, not a technology company.  The problem is, anyone who does want to start a company which actually researches, develops, and tries to sell technology as a product has to worry about being cloned and owned too.  Which is why most have turned to data mining for their main revenue stream.

I get that the licensing model for video codecs was convoluted.  But fundamentally, I believe that research and development of technology is worth something.  If you don't like the cost/terms of use, negotiate or shop around.  But I guess I'm a relic of the era where most technology creators had a level of respect for other creators.

AppleInsider said:

WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."

It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

corebeliefs said:

auxio said:

lkrupp said:

Remember, people, this is the former 'Facebook security chief’. Facebook and security are mutually exclusionary terms.

I was just about to say the same thing.  If people are outraged about CSAM scanning, they surely know about Facebook scanning everything (and not just hashes).  A former Facebook employee weighing in on it?  That's a joke right?

I'm not tracking the argument here. If anything, an ex-Facebook security chief would be more credible on this subject for the reasons you and others are stating, for the same reason the government uses embedded informants. They know what they're talking about. 

The argument is that, if you had no problem working for a company which scans everything people upload to them to build an advertising profile, how can you now speak out against Apple doing a very limited version of that when you're uploading to them?  Simply because it's happening on-device rather than server side?  Uh yeah, that's because it's the only way to maintain end-to-end data encryption.  If they had to generate the image hashes server side, it would mean you'd have to upload your photos unencrypted (or encrypted in a way which allows Apple to decrypt them).