As I've mentioned in another thread, Apple has been marketing itself so strongly as the leader in privacy that it now speaks about how it now treats privacy as a "fundamental human right". Their executives started using this phrasing when discussing privacy.
It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary commitment and action. To me, at least, that means privacy without compromise - and for everyone. ("Fundamental human rights" apply to all of us, right?)
Privacy with a bunch of disclaimers attached to it indicating all of the conditions under which your privacy will be abridged is not privacy. And it's certainly not the behaviour of a company that treats privacy as a "fundamental human right".
Apple needs to get a grip when it comes to dealing with and living up to this self-stated core value. I think that given the waves created by this CSAM on-device hash checking announcement and the questions many have about how to square this with their privacy talk, Apple's executives should say something and they should be unequivocal in what they say.
I think we are all throwing wrong questions at wrong entities. What we should ask is what the hell is going on and what is forcing everyone to implement backdoors in this organized manners.
China. Specifically, gradual capitulation to China.
"Apple's earnings for Greater China in Q2 2021 were up 87.5% from this time last year, to $17.7 billion. During its latest earnings call, Apple has announced dramatically increased revenues from Greater China for the three months ending March, 2021."
China has cracked down hard on domestic Internet companies over the past few weeks (deliberately crushing their tech stock market to rein in these companies and enforce governmental data surveillance/control). They're not going to leave Apple out.
Apple literally cannot lose that market. Its market cap would be halved. Saying they're going after child abuse in the US using a new algorithm is the perfect cover for gradual entry into enabling mass surveillance for China. No one can argue with the child abuse use case, but there will be plenty of consternation when this is used to scan for messages critical of Xi and the boys.
So you think if Apple announced a new algorithm that would be used for mass surveillance of the Chinese, there'd be some kind of mass outrage. And to avoid that mass outrage, they're starting with mass surveillance against Americans instead.
None of that makes sense. Why would using the system only to target child abuse in the US make people change their mind about using it against political dissidents?
Well, speaking broadly: that’s not how politics works.
If you go for a thing directly you show your hand and get a lot of backlash.
Case in point: the British NHS (because we can see it happening in real time).
Add the capability to do something for a good reason (NHS spending should be more efficient; we need approved suppliers // do it for the children) in order to make the further move of what you really want without much resistance (privatise parts of the NHS; eventually much of the NHS // back door every terrorist, dissident, detractor)
>If you go for a thing directly you show your hand and get a lot of backlash.
In this context, it is exactly how politics work, and you have described shifting the Overton window or even floating the Trial balloon.
re: NHS.
The case you are making doesn't fit your reasoning. As for privatisation in general, the current government is following a very basic rulebook:
1. Sabotage/kneecap an institution/
2. Offer a solution involving cronies/
3. Achievement Unlocked
1. For example, some Tory MP's (the elite that make the decisions for the plebs) don't need to rely on NHS for healthcare exclusively, hence they have a callous attitude towards it. They deploy all manner of subterfuge, replete with claps, lies and smiles, to starve out a public service funded by taxpayers.
2. The ultimate goal; offer a solution to the problem you manufactured (1) and share the spoils amongst yourselves, by awarding/rewarding and looking after each other's interests.
You're deliberately ignoring the use case, which makes your argument look silly.
Scenario 1: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart child abuse in the United States.
Scenario 2: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart Chinese dissidence.
Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world?
Apple *has* to take an orthogonal approach to giving China the surveillance capacity it desires. It can't openly enable a regime that just covered up and obfuscated investigation into perhaps the greatest human tragedy of our generation.
Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation... but it will deploy mass on-device privacy invasion for people who aren't even suspects to thwart child abuse?
Ask yourself: What changed?
If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control, I don't know what to tell you...
>Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world?
Your claim is that somehow scenario one makes scenario two suddenly palatable. Like people will say "oh, they ran an allegedly limited surveillance program for the US, so who cares if they run an unlimited one for China?"
>Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation..
Apple willingly offered to help unlock that iPhone. They're methods were blocked due to police mishandling of the device, and they were unwilling to pay to develop a backdoor for their own product.
>If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control,
This thread is about the FBI getting Apple to continue allowing easier access to devices. You brought up the example of the FBI trying to force Apple to allow them to access their devices. And the most recent event is Apple's surveillance of American devices. Yet somehow, you think the only possible reason Apple may be changing their stance is China.
2. Apple has always been less pro-privacy than you claim.
3. Everything mentioned here involves the US wanting more access. You claim that is proof of Chinese influence, rather than the obvious US influence.
I'm not seeing a multitude of spelling or grammar mistakes either, though I will admit that one sentence was poorly constructed. And I see a wrong "they're" I blaim on auto complete, though still my fault.
This is all pure speculation. Everyone in china is using WeChat anyway. China have this capability already. No one is sitting around a table thinking: "What do we do about Apple Messages", and if they were their solution would be: Block Apple messages. NOT: Ask an American company to implement spying for us and trust that they'll do it accurately... non sensical.
As pointed out this feature isn't even being launched in China.
But sorry to derail your narrative: China are the bad guys and all bad things are because of china.
This is pure BS. "Everyone in China is using WeChat anyway."
Really? Chinese citizens don't use their iPhone cameras to store photos locally? They only use WeChat to take pictures and store them? Gee, you should tell Apple AND Tencent this! It would dramatically shift their product development path.
Where did Apple Messages come into play? What does that have to do with locally stored photos?
"This feature isn't even being launched in China" -- yup. Apple has definitely never launched a feature first in the US then rolled it out worldwide.
"But sorry to derail your narrative: China are the bad guys and all bad things are because of china."
Who said that? Seems more like you've got a bias to apologize for the regime than anyone else has a bias to impugn it.
My point was the gov can already track everything because they are hooked into WeChat. So yeah… they don’t care what Apple do, cause as soon as it’s on WeChat they can see it.
That’s why I mentioned Messages… because that’d be the alternative.
Literally the OP said: “it’s China that is causing Apple to do this”… so in answer to your question: the OP.
Not apologising for the Chinese government. Do you call Biden administration a regime?
That’s right let’s ask for the source of the extremely believable claim of only launched in US[0]. But no one sourcing the “China is pressuring Apple to do this”.
As stated in the article Apple have said it is US only and will be switched on country by country… so surely if this was “BeCAusE ChIna!!!” It’d be switched on there first right?
Not at all. But the consistent “China are evil, and that is the reason These pure US companies do bad things” is infuriating. Then when you point out the fallacy of this kind of thinking getting one word: “source” adds to the frustration.
Even if it was launched globally it didn’t at all invalidate my point. They would ban the entire App in question, not back door it. See Facebook/Twitter as a well known example.
“China are evil, and that is the reason These pure US companies do bad things”
Literally no one is saying this. You're getting incredibly sensitive over a regime that just thwarted investigation into a pandemic that has killed more than 1 million people and making irrational arguments to defend it.
"hey would ban the entire App in question, not back door it. See Facebook/Twitter as a well known example."
Ban *which* app?? The iPhone is not an "app" LOL. It's a hardware device with both software and hardware privacy constraints antithetical to the Chinese government's desire for pervasive surveillance.
Apple is gradually shedding its hardcore privacy stance to retain its fastest growing market. It's not difficult to see if you take off your "ANYTHING BAD ABOUT CHINA IS RACIST!!" goggles.
TLDR: China is bad. This change is probably not because of china, but china will certainly use it.
> China are evil, and that is the reason These pure US companies do bad things
China (the gov) is evil.
> is the reason These pure US companies do bad things
The companies are not pure. China certain does things to coerce them them to do bad things that wouldn't otherwise do. Some things are very bad. Some things aren't bad inherently, but are very unlike apple. Examples:
[1] Hong Kong app removal
[2] iCloud CN being run by another company.
> They would ban the entire App in question, not back door it
China already does this, except it's a phone not an app. They already monitor in-flight data [3], so likely not a huge concern for them, but considering the monitoring they do, why wouldn't this be a nice perk for them. Personally, i doubt that china required apple to do this since they already get what they want. I'm sure they'll love to (ab)use this though. I'm confident that a government somewhere wants this (new UK/EU anti-e2ee laws?).
China can't ban the iPhone, apple actually has that much political power. They are a huge poster child of chinese manufacturing power. Every time a senator asks tim cook to move manufacturing stateside and he says that only china is capable, it pumps china up.
> Personally, i doubt that china required apple to do this since they already get what they want.
Then we agree. That is exactly what I said.
Re Chinese gov is evil - ra ra ra.
No they aren’t. Well no more than any other country. They just see the world and their place in it differently to you. But they haven’t invaded anyone since Ghengis Khan … yet they’ve been invaded by most of their neighbours and most of the American and European powers. In that context their view and action looks tempered, not evil.
“they just see the world and their place in it differently to you.”
You’re so right. For instance, the Chinese government sees that nothing of importance happened in Tiananman square in 1989 while the rest of the world sees a massacre.
The coffee shop hacker culture belives there is such thing as good and bad companies, hence why Google has been able to fool them with "do no evil" crap.
I still don't see the why though. It seems obvious to me that nothing is to be expected from corporations, other than a hopefully nice product at a reasonable price. Anything other than that sounds like wishful thinking to my ears, but I might be philosophically wrong.
> This really is something Tim needs to address before he again stands on stage and give lip service to Privacy with a capital P.
Cui bono?
Why does Tim Cook need to address this? To benefit Apple shareholders? To assuage the doubts of Apple customers who bought the false claims that Apple has made regarding their respect for users privacy?
Truth be told I don't think that Tim Cook as CEO of one of the richest and most powerful organizations in history needs to do anything because Apple has their customers by the balls. What are the few Apple users who even care about this issue going to do? Switch to Microsoft? Linux? Hah!
Face it, Apple users have made their bed and now they have to lie in it. People have been warning them for years about the Faustian bargain that they were making and how it was corrosive to society to entrench an entity like Apple and now here we are.
> Face it, Apple users have made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
Well said. They now finally realise that Apple Inc. was never their friends in the first place, like I have always said.
They cleverly used privacy as a marketing trick to lure them to buying into their ecosystem and to cover their suspicious acts under the reason of 'protecting the user's privacy'.
Given there are lots of Apple users buying M1 Macs, it is more likely that they would need to back up / restore from iCloud as they already do this on their iPhones.
So yes, they are so entrenched and locked in the Apple ecosystem, they won't move and will stay there for good, no matter how many times Apple screws them over. They are not your friends and only on the side of profit.
Every claim that Apple makes about respecting user privacy is false because Apple does not allow users the means to independently verify the claims made by Apple regarding security. Additionally Apple does not allow users the means t control the hardware that they purchase by for instance, installing whatever software that they want on their devices.
Apple has been using some dark patterns to force people to use iCloud. Telling them they haven’t finished setting up their phone. It notifies you until you sign up for the free tier, and then when that’s filled up it pesters you again
Why? They keep claiming being earth loving green hippies while mandating shredding of perfectly repairable/reusable products. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBqSOA9wRPk Doesnt seem to bother too many of their clients.
Apple is doing the right thing. About 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys experience child sexual abuse in the US at some point in childhood (underreported) [1].
What's more important? Your right to "privacy" (which you can still invoke by simply not using iCloud) or their right to a normal life?
And yes, their CSAM detection has lots of false-positives, but it will evolve. It will be doubleplusgood.
>What's more important? Your right to "privacy" (which you can still invoke by simply not using iCloud) or their right to a normal life?
My right to privacy of course because the other option is a strawman. What you are doing is the typical slippery slope of selling out something for everyone because of a small minority of criminals.
"Should criminal Mr. X be allowed to do Bad-Thing-At-Level-10 to Small-Amount or should we do Bad-Thing-At-Level-1 to Everyone?" None of these are correct. Both are or should be illegal.
Did you look into this? Because those who know how this system work says that not only will Apple's system not work it is also clearly illegal:
This is getting rolled out in the US, with one of (if not the) biggest populations of innocent people being put in prison in the western world. Where mass-surveillance is, well, massive. If this hasn't specifically been made to be abused as a backdoor it will quickly any way.
25% of all girls (officially). That's not a small minority of criminals, that's a national tragedy.
Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight abuse and protect their children. The numbers make clear that the old rules no longer work.
And it's "clearly illegal" because of... what? Because his (unnamed) attorney claims it's a felony? What if a different attorney claims it's perfectly legal?
It's just a CSAM detector for content you upload to iCloud. We're willing to shut down schools and shops to save lives but if there's a theoretical .000001% chance that some rando might look at my beach photos, it's suddenly mass-surveillance backdoor China stuff? Come on. We live in a society.
> Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight abuse and protect their children.
They could start by regulating guns. That would prevent the death, injury, and traumatisation of many children[1]. As a bonus, it would do the same for adults[2].
Or they could deal with the “urgent and preventable crisis” of having 1 in 6 children living in poverty[3].
People in these discussions aren’t against protecting children. Rather, they’re questioning the ulterior motives behind specific policies. If governments and companies could be trusted to keep their promises and not overreach, no one would be batting an eye at the recent Apple announcement. But historically, the inverse has been true: they’re pretty much guaranteed to try to abuse the system.
> Please don't use Whataboutism to derail this thread.
Please take my reply in full. The third paragraph addresses your larger point—consider it in isolation and the argument stands. The first two are there to provide context—they cover the notion that many in power only care to “protect the children” when that slogan helps them reach their own goals.
Your posts were downvoted to grey; there’s nothing to “derail”. I’m pointing out to you that the larger discussion isn’t about CSAM, but about the very real possibility that CSAM is being used as an excuse for a stepping stone to a system which will be abused for unrelated matters.
How is this general and decontexualised number, with no definition of what is considered "sex abuse", relevant to the matter of scanning for pornographic images on iPhones?
You're trying to play to people's emotions by emphasizing the perceived gravity and prevalence of the problem of sex abuse in general, and then trying to use that emotional momentum to argue for something largely unrelated.
We also need hardball journalists to start asking Tim these tough questions instead of fawning over AirPods
And we need employees to start demanding this internally