elijahg

ArchStanton said:

"Apple Employees"? Multiple tens of thousands voiced concern or 20 did? I don't like these misleading headlines. It allows a few people to control the public message. 

Apple, as another poster said, is still by far the best game in town. 

CSAM is probably not the hill to fight the privacy battle. Be sure that government will come to Apple and push for more. That's a better hill to fight the battle. 

800 posts so unless there are a couple of people spending a lot of time posting on Slack, it's a fair number of people.

Problem is at the top of that hill is not only CSAM, but behind a chain-link fence is all legal data that every iOS user owns. Whilst the government may not have the means to climb the hill, they do hold a pair of wire cutters.

lkrupp said:

Again, where will you all go if you can’t trust Apple anymore? I’ve asked this question many times but no responses. If you no longer trust Apple or think they are in bed with the government will you leave the platform? Where will you go? Or, as I strongly suspect, will you just bitch and whine about privacy and pray for the destruction of Apple, and then meekly accept the inevitable, and go about your lives?

All this talk about Apple destroying its credibility, PR disasters, loss of customers, is just a wet dream of the paranoid, NSA behind every bush crowd.

Early in my career I worked in a Ma Bell public office. We always had people calling and demanding we stop their neighbor from tapping their phone. We had one woman who regularly called in absolutely positive the Baptists across her street were listening to her phone calls during Sunday morning services. We had dispatched repairmen several times to find the ‘bug’ she was sure was there. We finally put her on the ‘do not respond’ list.

So what you're saying is no matter what any company introduces (presumably that extends to government too) everyone should simply suck it up and not let anyone know how you feel. Got it.

mcdave said:

baconstang said:

Why does the reviewer list items that are not supposed to be installed as "Cons"?
My Tesla doesn't have a catalytic converter, is that a "Con"?

I can see how having modern ports that aren’t nearly 25 years old could benefit the hub. I can’t see how a catalytic converter could benefit a Tesla.

This hub is like Tesla selling a stand-alone catalytic converter when the market has moved on.

This is a USB-A hub, of course it only has USB A ports. This is like being disappointed that a CD drive won't read floppy disks. The other invalid "con" is that it won't charge a laptop from the USB-B port. USB-B can't and should not ever provide power. It's a downstream port, providing power to the host isn't in the USB spec. Would you say it's a con that a Mac with USB-A ports won't charge from an iPhone for example?

When even the likes of WhatsApp are piling on with regards to privacy, you know you’ve made a mistake.

Mike Wuerthele said:

elijahg said:

Remember that 1 in 1 trillion isn't 1 false positive per 1 trillion iCloud accounts - it's 1 per 1 trillion photos. I have 20,000 photos, that brings the chances I have a falsely flagged photo to 1 in 50 million. Not quite such spectacular odds then.

One in a trillion over 20,000 photos is not 1 in 50 million. It's one in a trillion, 20,000 times. The odds do not decrease per photo, as your photo library increases in size. There is not a 1:1 guarantee of a falsely flagged photo in a trillion-strong photo library.

And even if it was, one in 50 million is still pretty spectacularly against.

Unfortunately it is - 1 in 1 trillion becomes 2 in 1 trillion with two photos. Or 1 in 500 billion. That then halves again with 4 photos, 1 in 250 billion and so on. It's little more than simplified fractions. Punch 1,000,000,000,000/20,000 into a scientific calculator and it'll be simplified to 50,000,000/1. The odds do decrease because there is a more likelihood you have a matching photo with 2 photos than 1 photo. And yes, statistically speaking 1 in 1 trillion means that in a trillion-strong library there will be one false match.

Also, it's massively more likely someone will get their password phished than a hash collision occurring - probably 15-20% of people I know have been "hacked" through phishing. All it takes is a couple of photos to be planted, with a date a few years ago so they aren't at the forefront of someone's library and someone's in very hot water. You claim someone could defend against this in court, but I fail to understand how? "I don't know how they got there" isn't going to wash with too many people. And unfortunately, "good security practices" are practised only by the likes of us anyway, most people use the same password with their date of birth or something equally insecure for everything.