corebeliefs

Who this isn't a good look for is AppleInsider. How far down the rabbit hole is AI willing to go with these posts that insinuate things that aren't proven and likely can't be proven? Because it's Apple we need to hear workplace grievances aired that have nothing to do with Apple products and services, and no one can verify whether they point to anything tangible for a customer to know?

Too many tech sites have made a career out of insinuation-journalism, where even scant evidence is used to prove a predetermined case. Reasoning like this: "If only .1% of the Apple workforce is alledging institutionally bad behavior, that's just evidence everyone else is too scared to talk."

AI, it's not too late to drop this kind of stuff. 

auxio said:

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).

Some of you are talking like the guy is defending Apple. He's saying exactly what people here believe is true, and he has the background to be credible in his criticism, unlike most posting here, including me. Your moral posturing about where he worked doesn't disqualify his knowledge on this subject. We don't know if he has "no problem" with what Facebook does. He left the company and now works at that shady college Stanford. Oh, wait, Stanford is one of the world's most prestigious schools. Maybe stop trying to apply your purity test and take what he says, or not. 

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. 

foregoneconclusion said:

LOL...what "strategy" do Amazon and Roku have for hardware? They're selling iterations of the same tech they've always sold. 

Do you think a strategy of selling 4K stick for $40 pretty much justifies itself? Everyone knows about the Apple tax and many are willing to pay it, but Apple charges $179. The remote sounds great but it's hard to pass up $40 for the same basic functions. 

Apple is an amazing company but has a long history of stonewalling users over computer defects. Everyone has their own story. I still recall in 2005, the white iBook I owned had a graphics driver issue that caused the screen to go crazy. Apple wouldn't acknowledge it for over six months and asked me to send back the machine multiple times. Later, it was admitted to be a widespread flaw. Maybe that's not the case here, I hope it's not, but it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.