tedz98

Apple can do no wrong in the eyes of many. This new feature that Apple has developed is wrong. It’s a bad capability put to good use. The objective of reducing the transmission of CSAM is good. But it’s like plugging leaks in the proverbial dike. It makes the transmission of illicit content more difficult but If implemented it will just force the use of other pathways to move the content about. However the byproduct of this action- the scanning of content of people’s devices- will be disastrous. Now that governments know there is an ability for Apple to interrogate the content on people’s devices it won’t be long before governments require Apple to perform other types of content scanning on devices. Governments routinely require Apple to divulge iCloud content. That content is not encrypted. Users had the option of keeping content secured from government eyes by keeping content on their devices and out of iCloud. This capability will mark the beginning of the end of that security. This capability is totally at odds with Apple’s heretofore emphasis on the privacy and security of content on their devices. The law of unintended consequences is going to have a significant impact if this capability is implemented. This is an example of the old Ben Franklin adage about giving up some freedom to have better security and having neither as a result. I’m surprised that Apple leadership hasn’t thought through this decision better and I’m fairly sure the marketing department at Apple somehow sees this as being beneficial to the company and revenues - which I think is decidedly wrong.

Even if the data is encrypted, if your hack is through a compromised userid and password the data will be decrypted. The real question should be why there isn’t two factor authentication?

Apple sees all of the, from their perspective, undesirable legislation that is developing in Washington. This week’s App Store proposed legislation as an example, and want to do things that gains them favors from the legislators. They want to say to the DC crowd look at all of the benefits our ecosystem brings, so you really shouldn’t start mucking around with what we’ve put together. Sure child porn is an abhorrent problem. The ends don’t necessarily justify the means here. This is a classic example of “if you aren’t breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.” And so we go deep er down the road of the surveillance state.

Seems like I’d better start working on my PhD in virology so I can have a valid opinion. Everyone here speaks in very absolute and very confident tones. There are some scientific beliefs which have been proven to be absolutely truthful and others that are open for debate. Such is the nature of the scientific method. There is still much to be learned about this pandemic. The politicians like to say follow the science as if it’s the absolute truth. Which it is not, at least wrt this pandemic. The politicization of this pandemic is abhorrent. The political class putting their objectives in front of the welfare of the American people is selfish and sad. Both sides are guilty but I’d say the left has been worse than the right. As with anything in life the best path forward is one that lies between the extremes. Moderation. Common sense. Accommodation of different perspectives are all important. In my opinion vaccination is appropriate for most people. But there are exceptions. Each individual should consult with a medical professional regarding their specific situation. Verbally attacking others with differing opinions is totally unacceptable. Disagree in a polite and adult manner. Especially if you want your opinion to be heard. The government has proved to be very helpful in the development and distribution of a vaccine. They’ve been less helpful in developing confidence by the American people in the validity, motivation and truth in what is being told to them. Which is sad.

I’m totally against child porn. But this capability is a double edged sword. Apple, which touts its strong belief in the privacy of its customers using its devices, to begin surveilling customer content sets up an unusual and potentially dangerous precedent. What undesirable content will be next to be monitored? Who gets notified when supposed undesirable content is identified? Who determines what constitutes undesirable content? What if governments demand unique monitoring capabilities if Apple wants to sell their products in their countries? Despite the universally agreed upon disgust towards child pornography, the freedom of the entire Apple ecosystem will be jeopardized if this capability is deployed. This is as good as giving government agencies “back door” access to iPhones - which Apple has vehemently opposed. Very good intentions with very dangerous side effects.