Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> What you described is merely a mitigation of a massive loss in security and privacy

If we're looking at the end result, a mitigation of a loss of privacy is an increase in privacy compared to the alternative, no?

I mean clearly what you're saying here is "scanning always bad!". I understand that, I really do. I'm saying that scanning was never not on the table for a large corporation hosting photos on their server. Apple held out on the in-cloud scanning because they wanted a "better" scanning, and GP's point is that it's ironic that the one cloud provider willing to try to make a "less bad" scanning option is the one most demonized in the media.

None of this is to argue that scanning is anything less than a loss in security and privacy. Yes, yes, E2EE running on free and open source software that I personally can recompile from source would be the best option.




> GP's point is that it's ironic that the one cloud provider willing to try to make a "less bad" scanning option is the one most demonized in the media.

I think that may be because it's far from clear that Apple's solution is "less bad".


> If we're looking at the end result, a mitigation of a loss of privacy is an increase in privacy compared to the alternative, no?

I guess you could say that in the same way that you can say that a gambler who just won $10 is "winning", even though their bank account is down $100,000. It only works if you completely lose all perspective.


"winning" is subjective, but $10 > $0 is a fact. That's all I'm trying to say here.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: