Then if you have nothing to hide, forward your username and password. See how that works?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Confirms Detection of Child Sexual Abuse Material is Disabled When iCloud Photos is Turned Off
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you have nothing to hide, send me all of your photos, since you're apparently totes ok with Apple employees looking through your iCloud picture library.
Yes, because people are never falsely accused, the hash AI is perfectly flawless (no false positive hash collisions), and I'm sure no Apple employees would ever abuse the system to look through a hot chick's iCloud Photo Library.
Last edited:
I'll be the judge of that. Give me access to your photo library. You have nothing to hide.
I have mixed feelings about this. One one hand, I do not like Apple backpedaling on the topic they’ve marketed incessantly for years and rolling back privacy. As others said, this can easily be a very slippery slope. I completely support finding and severely prosecuting people that abuse and harm children and taking actions to try to prevent it to begin with. I’m just not positive that I like this approach.
It brings up another topic in my mind: cloud services. Here’s the thing, when we store our data on someone else’s property (servers), we’re giving up some level of control of it. The direction that a lot of technology is currently going makes it to where we don’t really own anything. We’re just paying to use a company’s services. There seems to be a bit of a moral dilemma here.
It brings up another topic in my mind: cloud services. Here’s the thing, when we store our data on someone else’s property (servers), we’re giving up some level of control of it. The direction that a lot of technology is currently going makes it to where we don’t really own anything. We’re just paying to use a company’s services. There seems to be a bit of a moral dilemma here.
Yes exactly. I'll volunteer to prescreen your photos to make sure there's nothing incriminating before they get uploaded to iCloud. I want to do my part!
Again. Not the point. You clearly do not understand the ramification of these kind of action and are blindsided by the slogans.
That’s what folks who support Orwellian regimes always say. People are worried about privacy.
And how many wrong alarms and accusations do you deem ok not mentioning the spying on your private most precious photos, potentially of your own kids?
Yet it’s been stated it can track crops, color adjustments, rotations, transforms, and any edits. So how is it guaranteed that an adult/legal age subject in similar “pose”, “lighting”, “colors” and more similarities won’t get flagged? How can something that allows a match on a manipulated photo be guaranteed to not flag legal photos from a couple who are in a consenting relationship?
Searching my things even for crap they cannot find absolutely invades my privacy. In fact if it happens my privacy is gone regardless of my criminal record or intent.
Yup. Or someone has a bug in the algorithm. Doesn’t take much to see where this will go wrong.
Today: "If you're not a child pornographer or someone who partakes in such content, you have nothing to worry about. We're only scanning your photos for known kiddie porn. --Apple"
A little while in the future: "If you're staying in line with only approved ideas, you have nothing to worry about. We're only scanning everything you do all the time for thoughtcrime. --The iMinistry"
This is how draconian policies begin - by applying them to universally detested crimes.
A little while in the future: "If you're staying in line with only approved ideas, you have nothing to worry about. We're only scanning everything you do all the time for thoughtcrime. --The iMinistry"
This is how draconian policies begin - by applying them to universally detested crimes.
There is a line from having your picture exposed and having police/FBI show up. I know one couple where the woman is a model. She won’t care if the images got released, she offers the same to others. But having police show up because it was detected and is a false positive. That’s different.
Nope. General privacy abuse for everyone out-rules individual abuse.
But sure enough some would argue pro water boarding for the potential terror relief as well.
Edward Snowden warned us all a long time ago to stop using all cloud services and third party storage services (like Dropbox, Amazon, Google, etc).
Maybe I should have said "to me" it's still worth it. That way you can't say "Nope".
This is true. One of my employees was on community control (house arrest) many years ago. She was allowed to go the store, bank, etc only on certain days of the week and it had to be preapproved a week in advance. Once she was 2 minutes late arriving home. Her probation was violated and she spent 3 months in the slammer before a judge finally released her and dismissed the charge. The system is inherently corrupt. And lets not forget about how many poor souls have spent 3 or 4 decades in prisons for crimes they never committed.
I wish articles would put Apples new CSAM method in context. PhotoDNA [1] has been used by cloud providers for years to do exactly this sort of scanning for anything uploaded to the cloud. By Apple doing it on device prior to upload, they are setting up the ability to add iCloud Photo Library to the E2E encrypted list. Hopefully this is something they announce.
Ironically, Apple's method of doing CSAM on device right before the pic is uploaded is the most privacy focused way of checking, though it does lead to slippery slope arguments.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA
Ironically, Apple's method of doing CSAM on device right before the pic is uploaded is the most privacy focused way of checking, though it does lead to slippery slope arguments.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA
It would certainly be Apple's right to do so as long as they informed the users beforehand. Property owners have the ty right to set rules for the use of its property.
Privacy != Secrecy
Privacy means that you know how your data is used, you have agreed to it and you can verify that your personal data is correct and demand a correction if they're not. Your personal data should also be reasonable secured from unlawful access. Also you should be allowed to demand deletion unless there is a good reason not to.
This has always been the case with iCloud backups and iCloud Photo Library. This content is encrypted with a key known to Apple. They even document which data they can read or not.
So, let me get this straight, Apple will have the ability based on flags from an algorithm to have access to my iCloud photo library. This tells me that even without my password and untold number of outside individuals could have access to my iCloud library. This includes adding images, deleting images, and copying images that I have no recollection of. I would be all for this if it was end to end encryption that Apple had no access to. They could only read the flags and alert law-enforcement who could then start an investigation. I do not agree with the fact that I have no control over what is now in my iCloud library. Anyone could place any image in anyones iCloud photo library and they would have no legal recourse.
Why stop there though? Next Apple should pre-screen every thought typed into iMessage, Mail, Safari, Notes etc for potential misinformation!
That would take the burden off of YouTube, Facebook, et al for controlling speech.
Last edited: