Naiyas

techconc said:

Overall, I liked your thoughtful response.  However, I can't help but wonder if you understand how this is going to work.  You don't seem to have a problem with your iCloud Photo library being scanned.  Yet, you apparently have a problem with your photos being scanned on your phone... just before (and only then) they are uploaded to iCloud?  Really, what's the difference.  Photos that are never intended to go to iCloud on your devices will not be scanned.  I fail to understand the distinction you are making here.

To your point, I see this as more of a terms and conditions of service for using iCloud Photos.  It's not different in concept from what Google, Facebook, etc. are already doing today.

I agree with you in principle. My thought process is pretty simple as to how I draw a distinction, and is as follows:

I've never held the belief that public cloud stored data of any type is wholly private. I have therefore always balanced the benefit against the expectation that my cloud data will not be kept private, either through scanning to ensure T&Cs are complied with or through a malicious act. That doesn't mean I don't take precautions against the malicious actors... I have a long and complex password and enable two-factor authentication wherever possible. If I have data that I want to be kept private and secure it never makes it to any kind of public cloud storage system, iCloud included.

Consequently, I have never had any issue with my iCloud Photo Library being scanned for compliance with the T&Cs because my data is no longer on something I own. What is happening here is that something I own is now performing a compliance check before my data ever hits the server I do not own. It's not that I don't believe such a check shouldn't take place, its "where" that check takes place.

I realise that doing it on device means the unencrypted image can be used for the hash-matching process, but that's just the point... my device is performing a search of my data held on my device. It doesn't matter whether the process is only enacted if iCloud Photo Library is engaged, the simple fact that it is being run on device opens the door to legislators in many countries that would love to force the tech companies to operate similar technology for other purposes. Having it server side clearly draws the line that such search activity can only be performed once you have "given it" to a third party.

I know it's a petty point and the distinction is purely one of timing. In fact it doesn't really change the overall outcome at all. But I consider it to be a very important point, similar to how the placement of a comma in a legal document can completely change the legal position. Hopefully that makes more sense?

I’ve refrained from commenting on this “reveal” for some time because I wanted to have a proper think about it. My view still isn’t fully developed but it runs down the following line…

There are many bad things in the world that occur when you embrace freedom of the individual and we accept those risks… freedom of speech implies that someone (somewhere) will find what you have to say offensive, but to limit it actually makes the world a worse place to live because you push the perceived hate underground and it will therefore manifest itself in other ways.

Privacy is another one. By executing this algorithm on your phone (ignoring the legal stuff around T&C etc) you are effectively having an illegal search performed on your private information or property. The reason may be valid in this instance, CSAM, but it is never the less an illegal search of your personal property taking the view that you are guilty (the act of conducting the matching search) until proven innocent (the lack of matches found).

Whilst I can get behind the reason, I just can’t get behind the method of execution. It’s very much like “curation creep”.  We see on the App Store things like porn apps being banned. Do I want them? No. Is that a good enough reason to ban them entirely? Not sure, but it’s Apple’s store and they are free to make that choice as store owner. But forcing a privacy invading search of your photos onto your phone is a step too far in my opinion. Search my iCloud Photo library on your servers by all means to ensure compliance with the service’s T&C, but to operate it on “my” phone… not convinced.

If this is how they want to go then perhaps they should treat all iPhone users like employees of Apple and provide iPhones to us for a small fee with the premise that we never ever own it ourselves. That way at least they have the clear legal right to search the phone just like your employer does when they give you a work device.

I do find the different views rather amusing as it just shows that everyone likes something different, but even more apparent no-one actually likes change!

Personally, I find the new remote to be the best for me and my use case of all of the previous ones. I have no issue with getting the click wheel scrolling working, I like the new button placement, I can use it in the dark, the touch pad doesn’t randomly activate when I pick the remote up, and it’s much harder to lose in-between the sofa cushions.  But that is for me.

My partner doesn’t have an opinion on the matter, but finds the new scroller better than the old swipe and the even older click, but at the end of the day says the touch based remote was “fine”, and they don’t really have an opinion on which one they would prefer.

My kids don’t care at all. After about 30 seconds they got used to it and just do not care in the slightest so long as they can watch what they want to watch. Perhaps it’s an age thing that makes us anti-change?

This is definitely true of my father who is a bit of a Victor Meldrew character (look it up if you don’t get the inference!) the older he gets. He hated the Siri remote with a passion, doesn’t like the new one, and still uses the original remote with the direction key selector and two buttons. He just cannot deal with any change beyond that remote from almost a decade ago. If that remote ever stops working the AppleTV will never be used again by him I’m sure of it.

The simple response is that we each have our preferences. Mine is the new one, the partner and kids don’t care at all, and my father prefers the remote from the Gen3 and earlier days.

If you don’t like it, return it; if you do like it then you probably won’t share your opinion on the matter in these forums because I’m sure the vast majority of AppleTV buyers just want a device that is simple to use and actually works 99.999% of the time. Many will just manage with the remote that’s in the box when they bought it anyway. A minority of consumers will
invest further than that off their own back.

It’s a little bit like when the UK computer scientists that were working on the RISC architecture started to test how much power their new CPUs (now known as ARM) used they found it was running on residual power (i.e. the CPU wasn’t plugged in to power and it still operated for a short time). So it’s not that surprising that users used to non-RISC battery usage were confused by RISC battery usage.

Appleish said:

Step 1) Ignore the advice of the previous administration to keep a laser focus on Osama bin Laden
Step 2) Kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in the wrong country and reap amazing oil profits

We don't need to watch it. We lived it.

Step 1 is actually a falsehood. If you had bothered to read the books and watched the documentaries on the run up to 9/11 you would have found out that the Clinton administration ignored the OBL threat almost wholesale, as did Bush Senior after the Gulf War. The mistakes were many but own no way solely the responsibility of the Bush Junior administration... the ignorance of it by all prior administrations is plain to see with proper hindsight.

Step 2 is bang on. "Why Iraq?" is beyond me other than Bush Junior felt he had to "finish" Bush Senior's Gulf War is the worst reason in living memory. Never has the expression "better the devil you know than the one you don't know" been more apt and much of the world continues to pay the price for this folly today. The waste of life and treasure on Afghanistan is also a complete disaster that was easily foreseen if anyone had bothered to look at Russian history in the country.

But neither of these are relevant to the Apple TV / BBC documentary... me, I'll be interested to watch it to see what "spin" will be made of the events through the "20 years later" lens.