davidw

ihatescreennames said:

elijahg said:

ihatescreennames said:

Rayz2016 said:

elijahg said:

Bollocks. So when the Chinese government tells Apple to add a heap of CPP provided hashes, they’re going to refuse? Of course they won’t. If any government said provided data were hashes of CSAM material, who’s Apple to say it’s not?

That's the great thing about the CSAM material; it's just hashes. In some countries it could kiddie porn; in other countries it could be photos taken by the police at protest march. And in those countries, Apple won't be the only ones checking the pictures.

CSAM is not just hashes. Where did you get that idea? The hashes that Apple will compare against come from NCMEC, where the actual images are stored. The hashes are created from the images. Are we supposed to believe that NCMEC will now just accept a hash from any government that feels like sending it over without a corresponding image to go along with it?

Let’s not forget that it US law requires tech companies to report incidences of CSAM. Also, using iCloud Photo Library is opt in, so people who are worried about their photos being matched to a hash don’t need to opt in.

Gruber posits that doing the check client-side, rather than server-side, will allow them to fully encrypt iCloud backups.

So you think China will be happy with Apple using hashes of NCMEC? Where the US government could insert hashes that are of someone they want in China, and then under the guise of CSAM find out all the photos they want of this person? 

There is literally no point in encrypting backups if Apple has defied the trust of their customers by inserting this spyware. What's the point in end to end encryption if the spyware is already on the device pre-encryption? How long until it scans all files on your phone before syncing to iCloud? How long before it scans all files all the time? 

That isn’t how hashes work. Hashes find the exact same photograph, not a photograph that is similar. So, your imagined scenario where the US government uploads a hash of a photo of someone they are looking for and in return get all photos of that person is not how it works. The uploaded hash would only help to find positive matches of that exact same photo.

Also, as has been mentioned several times already, everyone can opt out.

I don't think that's how it works. I someone cropped a photo that is in the NCMEC data base, it should have a different hash when scanned by Apple, but I bet it would still come up with a match. Same if some one were to place a "Smiley" sticker on one corner of the photo or to make a mirror image of it or change its color or contrast, to come up with a different hash. The detecting software is set to come up with a match if the photo is visually similar to one in the database. But it doesn't have to be any where near an "exact" same photo, to come up with a match.

PhotoDNA developed by Microsoft around 2009 does this. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA

And interestingly, cited under "History" in the link ....... 

>In 2016, Hany Farid proposed that the technology could be used to stem the spread of terror-related imagery, but little interest was initially shown by social media companies.[21] In December 2016, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft announced plans to use PhotoDNA to tackle extremist content such as terrorist recruitment videos or violent terrorist imagery,[22] which was done e.g. to automatically remove al-Qaeda videos.[23]<

Also interesting is that the software can detect a hash of a photo spliced into a video. Which means that a video you might receive, might look harmless but can get you in trouble if there's just one frame of that video, which you can't see when playing the video, is a hash of a photo in the NCMEC database. 
 

bdubya said:

 "We have faced demands to build and deploy government-mandated changes that degrade the privacy of users before, and have steadfastly refused those demands. We will continue to refuse them in the future."

How quickly Apple has forgotten they caved into a foreign government power mandating changes so they could keep selling in China? Sacrificing privacy and security of their user’s iCloud storage to be stored in China for profits over the customer privacy - shame Apple. I think they have proven how ‘steadfast’  they actually are… Maybe this will be the last iOS device.

There is no customer privacy from the government of China. China government is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. China citizens are not protected from their own government, by the US Constitution. Apple could not had sacrificed any of their China customers privacy, that they don't have it the first place. If anything, if Apple were able to keep their China customers iCloud accounts away from the eyes of their government, their China customers would have gained some privacy. I don't think any of their China customers were counting on that.  

genovelle said:

I’m not understanding the debt angle. They tend to maintain around 200 million in cash, so why pay interest on debt. Unless it provides tax savings somehow. 

One angle is that most of Apple cash balance are in overseas account and only been taxed overseas. If Apple were to bring that cash back to the US, they have to pay what US tax is owed, before they can use it to back back shares, use it for dividend payout or for acquisitions. 

The other angle is that AAPL dividend payout is now about .6% at $145 a share. Which would be near the historic low as AAPL share price is near its historic high. So even now, with the shares Apple buys back, they save .6%, which goes toward paying the interest on the money used for buy backs. Apple do not have to pay out a dividend for the shares they buy back.


I remember a while back when Apple borrowed money with an interest rate that was a little less that the percent of the dividend payout (at the time). So for every share they bought back with borrowed money, they were making money by not having to pay the dividend on those shares. In the mean time, the cash they didn't have to use to buyback shares was still in an account collecting some interest. The interest collected might not even beat inflation, but its something.  The cash would eventual be use to pay back the loan.

I did the same thing with a margin account backed mainly by my AAPL stock holding. I would borrow money from my margin account at about 8% interest to pay off in full any monthly credit card debt that would had been financed at 15% to 22% interest, instead of selling any stock. In the long run, the AAPL shares that I did not sell at the time to pay off CC debt, was worth way more that the total debt it would had paid off, the interest and the interest on the interest. Now this only works with stocks or a stock portfolio that in the long run, goes up by more than the interest.

When my friends look at my stock portfolio and inquire how did i know what stocks to buy, I always tell them, it's not a matter of knowing what stocks to buy, but knowing what stocks not to sell.  

aaargh! said:

jimh2 said:

It’s a free service. (…)

This is an example of wanting something better than free for free

This is an example of how deceptive business practices won’t fly in Europe.  In the EU you are required to show the actual price of a product, including taxes, required fees, etc. If you advertise a product you just have to do it with the actual amount the customer has to pay, not some made up lower price that doesn’t reflect reality.

The US introduced a law that will do the same. AFAIK, it hasn't passed yet. 

https://hotellaw.jmbm.com/federal-legislation-introduced-making-hotel-resort-fees-and-other-mandatory-charges-illegal.html

But let me ask you this, if in the EU, hotels are required by law to show the actual cost of the room per night, including all taxes and mandatory fees, then why is it up to Google to enforce that law? All Google search is doing is going by the price that hotels are advertising. If hotels are not advertising their room rates as required by EU laws, shouldn't there be some other commission in the EU that see to it that hotels are obeying the laws?  Why does the EU have to force Google to enforce EU laws, under the threat of being fined, if hotels that aren't complying with the law concerning advertising room rate, ends up being listed high on a Google search result? Google is not the one advertising the room rates of the hotels, in their search result. If all the hotels were complying with the law, then a Google search of  ...... "cheapest hotels in what-ever EU city" ...... would yield a result that shouldn't be deceptive to consumers. Unless Google is listing paid search results higher on the list, even though they might not be cheaper than those that didn't pay Google. 

It's different in the US as there is not yet a law barring hotels from not including the "resort fee", when advertising their room rate. Even if the "resort fee" is mandatory. So it's buyers beware. So maybe here, Google has some responsibility to consumers, to see that their search results for ..... "cheapest hotels"....., are comparing apples to apples. Just like how on eBay, I can better compare the price of an item from different auctions, with a search filter using ....... "price + S&H, lowest first".  

GeorgeBMac said:

sdw2001 said:

rcfa said:

About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online.
The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.

It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.

Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online.  Great idea.  

It kind of is a great idea.

Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media.   The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.

The result is, among other things:  conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.

Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down.  While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.livwe

I find it ironic that you would paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes most famous quote, that was made when the SCOTUS unanimously decided that the 1st Amendment did not protect the plaintiff right to distribute flyers opposing the draft (during WW1). A decision that was later partially overturned and is considered by some  to be one the worse decision made by the SCOTUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

https://moneyinc.com/worst-supreme-court-decisions/

Too often the quote is shorten from  ".....falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...."  to just "yelling FIRE in a crowed theater" .... and "crowded" is added. While the most important part, "...and causing panic.", is not mentioned at all. As to make it appear that "lying" is not protected speech.  

Justice Holmes used it as an example that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that there are speech that is not protected under certain circumstances. Like when it's used to created a "panic" or "present a clear and present danger" that the government should protect the public against.  But in the case that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against, the "speech" did not cause a panic and was later ruled as "protected speech".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

It appeared that the SCOTUS had overstepped their boundaries in many cases, when deciding what "clear and present danger" entails and using as a means to denied a person their 1st Amendment rights. The meer act of spreading "disinformation" is protected speech and "clear and present danger" can be too broadly defined by the government to deny ones 1st Amendment rights or worse .... suppress the truth.

Even the very liberal press "The Atlantic", seems to agree.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/  ;