techconc

Naiyas said:

...
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.
...

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.

Leifur said:

So I understand the hashes come from a database run by a government? So then that government can easily slip any other hash into the same database depending on what they are looking for.

This is building in that back door that was requested some years ago.

As others have mentioned, the NCMEC is not a government agency.  Further, there is a manual review performed before any report is sent out.

Here's my take...  At a high level, I understand the concern and I don't think this is a necessary step for Apple to take.   Having said that, it seems to implemented in a secure and private manner... exactly what we'd expect from Apple.  This sort of scan is already being done by the likes of Facebook, Google, etc.  This really isn't anything new.  Moreover, the majority of critics amount to nothing more than conspiracy theories which involve fears of what "might happen" in some future date, etc.   I think the optics are bad for putting in this kind of "feature" in the first place.  I get it.  However, the fears and corresponding over reactions seem unfounded in my opinion. 

jkichline said:

This is obvious. They’ve just released the first iMac M1. Why would the update that immediately in October? They will rather focus on the pro market segment where additional screen outputs and higher performance are key.

Nobody is expecting an update to the low end iMac.  The 24" iMac replaced the former 21" low end iMac series.  Apple still needs to address the higher end 27" iMac replacements.  I'm waiting for that upgrade as well.  While the 16GB M1 is impressive (for a low end chip), it doesn't address the needs of higher end users.

amar99 said:

Ministry of Truth at work.

Exactly.  The government shouldn't play a role in this.  This is a slippery slope.  Who becomes the arbiter of truth, especially over opinions?  If we're talking about a "news" site, then fine... hold formal news sites as liable for misinformation.  However, this is social media... where people come to express their opinions, etc.

1. The government should not be involved with this.

2. Social media sites shouldn't attempt to be the arbiter of truth either.  Let free speech happen with the exception of #3 (below)

3. Social media sites should conduct only light moderation.  It's fair to remove blatantly obvious hate speech and posting of things like trade secrets or copyrighted material should be removed.  Beyond that, let people post what they want. 

Look, I wish the fine folks at Panic the best of luck with this device, but... honestly, this just looks like an incredibly bad idea to me.  I honestly hope I'm wrong for their sake because I like the company.