anonymouse

macplusplus said:

crowley said:

macplusplus said:

crowley said:

macplusplus said:

crowley said:

macplusplus said:

crowley said:

macplusplus said:

9secondkox2 said:

crowley said:

newisneverenough said:

Apple completely screwed this up. It’s conceptually wrong from the start. I can’t believe this even got initiated as a project. It’s idiotic to try and excuse looking into private data by justifying the method of the technology. Apples entire stance before now is something I have supported. In this ridiculous step they’ve utterly failed. And should cancel this initiative. 

If it's being uploaded then it's not simply private data, it's data that the user is pushing into Apple's domain.  Why shouldn't Apple take steps to verify that they aren't being asked to host illegal photographs?

It’s MY data being stored. Supposedly with my privacy in mind. 

Not anymore. 

Goodbye iCloud storage. 

Nothing to hide. Also not willing to allow the first footstep into a slippery slope of “oh. Your data is only yours. Well, unless we find a reason for it not to be.@

It is your data and it is private but that privacy cannot prevent Apple from performing legally required checks and scans on their servers. This is one reason most of the iCloud data is not end-to-end encrypted. It is still encrypted, but with Apple's keys, not your own device keys. Practically unencrypted, from the user's point of view. And this is why law enforcement can access your iCloud data anytime by presenting a search warrant.

But scanning your iPhone is totally different. It is your property, not Apple's. You didn't rent that device from Apple, you bought it. And the child protection pretext falls short given the invasiveness of what they want to implement.

They aren't scanning your iPhone, they're scanning the photo that you want to put on their service.  They're refusing to even take it without first checking if it matches a known child abuse picture.  That seems fine to me.

No they don't refuse anything. If their intent were to refuse something they could refuse it on the server as well. They accept whatever you send, but with an associated "safety voucher" if there is a CSAM match. And if those vouchers reach a certain threshold they report you.

They're refusing to even take it without first checking if it matches a known child abuse picture.

How so? The graphic says"uploaded to Apple" so they take it.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/08/06/what-you-need-to-know-apples-icloud-photos-and-messages-child-safety-initiatives

After the check.  

No the check is only for producing the safety voucher. Besides, since human review is required after the threshold is reached, refusing anything before the human review would be meaningless.

I think you've misunderstood me.  I never said that Apple will refuse to take the photo based on the output of the check, just that they refuse to take it without the check having taking place.  The result of the check doesn't make a difference to whether they take it, but it has to be checked against the CSAM list.

OK, refusing on the server / refusing on the client conflict has caused it. The check, as proposed, seems for good cause, but it is new, it signals the introduction of a new paradigm. This is the new paradigm that causes people's concerns and questioning, as to where that can go. No such labeling of user content upon the request of a third party has occurred before. Today pictures, tomorrow what? Would you like to be labeled as copyright pirate because of a song sent to you as a gift and you long forgotten it exists somewhere on your iPhone?

Go to Daring Fireball, read about it, read Apple's own technical description of how it works. The scenario you present as a concern will not happen. The problem is a bunch of people who either don't understand it, didn't take the time to understand it, or, like the Epic CEO, want to deliberately misrepresent it for personal gain, have shaped your idea of how it works and they're all wrong. Take the time to actually learn about it and understand it before you condemn it.

mcdave said:

anonymouse said:

mcdave said:

anonymouse said:

emjaydee85 said:

patchythepirate said:

... Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents ...

"COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way. Both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines deliver instructions (genetic material) to our cells to start building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19. However, the material never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html

Just to expand on this a bit, since it seems to be an area highly susceptible to disinformation due to the specialized nature of the topic — i.e., most people have no basis in their knowledge to evaluate these wild claims about vaccines altering your genes.

First, the mRNA vaccines cannot alter your "genes" because they don't contain any DNA. The mRNA enters your cells, makes its way to the ribosomes in the cytoplasm, where it gets transcribed to make Covid spike proteins, and then is immediately destroyed. The spike proteins are released and cause an immune response. This entire process simply uses the cell's machinery to manufacture proteins in exactly the same way the cell naturally manufactures proteins and destroys mRNA produced internally. But they key thing to remember about mRNA vaccines is they don't contain any DNA, so there is no DNA to "alter your genes".

The viral vector vaccines work differently and require an additional step — i.e., the production of mRNA — after which the process is identical to the way mRNA vaccines work, as described above. The viral vector vaccines do contain DNA, but they also don't "alter your genes" because they simply don't have the ability to do so. Here's a good explanation of why this is so from https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91604  "Here's Why Viral Vector Vaccines Don't Alter DNA

— It's pretty simple -- they can't" [emphasis mine]:

Potential to Change DNA?

Adenoviruses deliver DNA that can enter the cell nucleus, which brings up the question of whether they can alter DNA. That's an easy one -- no.

Adenoviruses -- even as they occur in nature -- just do not have the capacity to alter DNA. Unlike retroviruses such as HIV or lentiviruses, wild-type adenoviruses do not carry the enzymatic machinery necessary for integration into the host cell's DNA. That's exactly what makes them good vaccine platforms for infectious diseases, according to Coughlan.

And, engineered adenoviruses used in vaccines have been further crippled by deleting chunks of their genome so that they cannot replicate, further increasing their safety.

"The cell lines that are used for adenovirus vaccines are highly and well characterized cell lines. They are classified by the FDA as nonintegrating, meaning there has never been any evidence in humans and multiple animal models of vector-borne DNA integrating into a host," said Gregory Poland, MD, of the vaccine research group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

The enzymatic machinery, which these adenoviruses don't have, in case you are wondering, refers to enzymes that are capable of opening up DNA strands to allow DNA to be inserted. Without this, it's completely impossible for it to "alter your genes" because it simply has no way to do so. It's basically like not having a key to a lock, without which you cannot unlock the door, and in this case unlocking the door is the only possible way in.

Anyone you hear saying something contrary to the above simply does not understand the science they are referring to, and probably not science generally, something all too common these days.

Science rarely fails to deliver its intended outcomes there are robust scientific methods and legal recourse to ensure this. Where science invariably fails is in its unintended outcomes due to lack of consideration for the context of application.

Your commentary is flawed in that cellular reproduction unzips the DNA to RNA. Let’s hope the vaccine mRNA doesn’t make an untimely quantum visit to the delivery room or we won’t be handing out cigars, we’ll be handing out tumours. But I’m sure that context has been very, very well considered.

Ok, well, it's pretty clear you have no knowledge of this: "unzips the DNA to RNA". Go learn something and then come back and post when you can write something that isn't nonsense.

Idiot- or more accurately pro-vax political troll. This is high school biology;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26887/

I guess we should ignore the rest of your comments if you didn’t know even this.

Really, you need to get educated. Your understanding is so limited that you don't even understand that the link you posted does not support your statement that "cellular reproduction unzips the DNA to RNA".

DNA and RNA are different molecules and DNA does not become RNA simply because the strands unwind and the base pairs unlink, like during replication or transcription.

Secondly, unlinking the base pairs is entirely different from causing an opening in the strand that would allow new DNA to splice in — one is like pulling apart the strands of a string while the other is like cutting a string in half. There are entirely different bonds that would require entirely different enzymes to break — just like you pull the strands of a string apart with your fingers but use a scissor to cut it. So, no, there is no risk that the viral vector DNA could become "integrated" at that time.

Really, all these crazy fears are borne of ignorance. But, if you don't know the science, the best advice is don't listen to people with no standing in science, listen to the experts.

emjaydee85 said:

patchythepirate said:

... Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents ...

"COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way. Both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines deliver instructions (genetic material) to our cells to start building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19. However, the material never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html

Just to expand on this a bit, since it seems to be an area highly susceptible to disinformation due to the specialized nature of the topic — i.e., most people have no basis in their knowledge to evaluate these wild claims about vaccines altering your genes.

First, the mRNA vaccines cannot alter your "genes" because they don't contain any DNA. The mRNA enters your cells, makes its way to the ribosomes in the cytoplasm, where it gets transcribed to make Covid spike proteins, and then is immediately destroyed. The spike proteins are released and cause an immune response. This entire process simply uses the cell's machinery to manufacture proteins in exactly the same way the cell naturally manufactures proteins and destroys mRNA produced internally. But they key thing to remember about mRNA vaccines is they don't contain any DNA, so there is no DNA to "alter your genes".

The viral vector vaccines work differently and require an additional step — i.e., the production of mRNA — after which the process is identical to the way mRNA vaccines work, as described above. The viral vector vaccines do contain DNA, but they also don't "alter your genes" because they simply don't have the ability to do so. Here's a good explanation of why this is so from https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91604  "Here's Why Viral Vector Vaccines Don't Alter DNA

Potential to Change DNA?

Adenoviruses deliver DNA that can enter the cell nucleus, which brings up the question of whether they can alter DNA. That's an easy one -- no.

Adenoviruses -- even as they occur in nature -- just do not have the capacity to alter DNA. Unlike retroviruses such as HIV or lentiviruses, wild-type adenoviruses do not carry the enzymatic machinery necessary for integration into the host cell's DNA. That's exactly what makes them good vaccine platforms for infectious diseases, according to Coughlan.

And, engineered adenoviruses used in vaccines have been further crippled by deleting chunks of their genome so that they cannot replicate, further increasing their safety.

"The cell lines that are used for adenovirus vaccines are highly and well characterized cell lines. They are classified by the FDA as nonintegrating, meaning there has never been any evidence in humans and multiple animal models of vector-borne DNA integrating into a host," said Gregory Poland, MD, of the vaccine research group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

The enzymatic machinery, which these adenoviruses don't have, in case you are wondering, refers to enzymes that are capable of opening up DNA strands to allow DNA to be inserted. Without this, it's completely impossible for it to "alter your genes" because it simply has no way to do so. It's basically like not having a key to a lock, without which you cannot unlock the door, and in this case unlocking the door is the only possible way in.

Anyone you hear saying something contrary to the above simply does not understand the science they are referring to, and probably not science generally, something all too common these days.

elijahg said:

SoftBank only just bought ARM a few years ago. Seems weird to sell them off a few years later.

Well, they may need to cover their WeWork losses.

I suspect this analyst is mistaken as that strategy doesn't make any sense. If Apple delays the launch of 5G phones until December/January and everyone know they are delaying it until December/January, sales for the September release will be slow until then while even people who end up buying September models will wait to see what's coming later. If it's not generally known, there will be a lot of disappointed people who bought September phones and sales for the December/January models will suffer  because people have already done their annual upgrade. If there is uncertainty about whether it will happen, sales for the September models will suffer while people wait to see if new models are coming in December/January.

Seems like bad news for Apple in all scenarios. Seems unlikely they wouldn't think through the scenarios. Apple doesn't generally do stupid things.