On: Google's Unannounced Update Scans All Your Photos

[fsflover]

Does it matter? A tiny and invisible update would be able to change that in no time and with no possibility for a user to opt out.

[JimDabell → fsflover]

This is true of literally any software with auto updates.

You’re criticising them for something they did not do, did not intend to do, and designed a system that worked in an entirely different way… just because they could do it differently to what they actually proposed doing.

If they wanted to do it that other way, they could have just done it that other way in the first place and saved themselves a lot of effort.

[fsflover → JimDabell]

It's only true for proprietary software, which actively prevents users from studying it. Especially when the trust in company plunges due to the enshittification, https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/26/ursula-franklin/ and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243075

[JimDabell → fsflover]

> It's only true for proprietary software

No, this is not true. There is nothing stopping open-source software from pushing malicious updates.

But you are avoiding my main point. You are criticising Apple for something they haven’t done and had no plans to do.

[fsflover → JimDabell]

> There is nothing stopping open-source software from pushing malicious updates.

Two things stop it: (much simplified) oversight by the community and a possibility to fix the code.

> You are criticising Apple for something they haven’t done and had no plans to do.

The do participate in the enshittification (https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/26/ursula-franklin/ and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243075), so my only expectation is that they won't do what's best for the users. In addition, they removed many features requested by the users like the headphone jack.

In general, the less you trust in a company, the better. Free software allows to decrease the trust in the vendor by watching the code and forking whenever you have to.