thrang

It's been common practice at least in the US (at least in metro NY and NJ,) to have to show the contents of your bag prior to entering an arena or stadium, given the number of ill-minded people out there (and pass through metal detectors, at least at Madison Square Garden and Prudential Center). This is general knowledge.

Why resist it? There is no harm to you, and in fact, the collective action is making a safer environment.

Again, it is NOT a back door. It is a warning beacon. Very different

My take is this.

Apple saw the writing on the wall regarding government mandated back-doors. Doors that would all in all likelihood much more open with unfettered access to much if not all of your information. Perhaps begin he sense, the pressure were growing immense.

Perhaps, they decided to develop a content and technology around very narrow and focused one-way beacons (to avoid a mandated backdoor), initially to identify illegal and abhorrent possession and behavior. Perhaps evidence of murders, rapes, extortion, terrorism, may be other beacons that are sent out in the future.

I know, there will be discussions over who makes the decisions, how is it vetted, errors, misuse, hacking, etc. But essentially, to me, Apple seeking to control the process of what they see are inevitable laws that they would need to comply with and with much worse outcomes for users. One way beacons that need to be further vetted to ensure no false positives is an effort to ameliorate law enforcement concerns while still protecting legitimate private information is perhaps a very good approach.

While it feels icky upon initially hearing about it, the more you think about it this way (and what government enforced alternatives might be), it may begin to make sense.

In terms of what defines when these future beacons will be sent out, Apple will like say ask for the pertinent laws to govern such beaconing, leaving up to elected leaders to clarify/legislate/vote what kind of content is considered severely harmful, how it is to be legally obtained, and utlimately leave it up to voters to support or oust those politicians in future elections. So in this case, there is a well defined hash database for this particular category. Apple then implements an on-device methodology that is designed to keep the rest of your data protected and unavailable for unrelated sniffing about while beaconing when there is a match.

As to other categories of hash matching, governments will need to figure that out which would be subjects to immense scrutiny  and public debate I'm sure...

There are caveats of course, but in principal this is how I see what has happened.

DaRev said:

patchythepirate said:

How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.

Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.

Then I hope they look at the data and do not force vaccines and masking on the 0-17 age groups. The CDC data  (hospitalizations and deaths) is very clear that the risks are extremely low. Something like three times as many died from pneumonia than Covid + Covid/pneumonia combined, cumulative, since March 2020.

As for the 0-17's being sources of transmissions, the responsibility should lie with the adults around them to ensure they are vaccinated (and masked themselves if they choose)

scheme?

service