Yeah, you know that big corporation like Apple wouldn't exist these days without a Chief Privacy Officer? Ignorance is bliss I guess.
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's Chief Privacy Officer Jane Horvath to Depart Company
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, you know that big corporation like Apple wouldn't exist these days without a Chief Privacy Officer? Ignorance is bliss I guess.
My thought exactly. Hard to be a 'Privacy Officer' when Apple crassly proposes to violate privacy in a blanket way, without a search warrant, with CSAM scanning spying software.
I agree that the CSAM-scanning idea is a slippery slope that will be copied, but the CSAM algorithm Apple proposes to use has no doubt been enabled by AI-optimised chips on iPhones. The CSAM-scanning software is a perceptual algorithm of sorts, and while it is not AI per se, it comes close and the calculations are similar to those of true AI systems. It is only a matter of time before another foolish team of clueless engineers proposes to actually use AI to censor browsing, texting, etc. And then it is only a short leap to have that AI inform authoritarian governments about any sanctioned activities their citizens have been up to. Apple was really stupid in even proposing the idea. Big Brother in your pocket, always monitoring you in ways never experienced before by mankind.
As long as your own profit does not suffer? Or why is Google the default search engine?
The answer is here: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/10/25/google-apple-search-default-8-12-billion/
Apple may be better than the other big players. But Apple could still be much better when it comes to privacy.
Google already uses AI for censor browsing. Didn't you see the news report a few days ago where a father was censored by Google because he and his wife sent medical pic's of their son's swollen private parts to their doctor via the doctors messenging service (am assuming google email) at the doctors request. The doctor diagnosed the problem, prescribed the right medicine and now the boy is doing OK but Google's AI alerted Google to the pictures and the man got all his Google accounts closed down. Basically Google argued that context of the images do not matter, it is the fact such images were sent and in doing so it broke Google's terms of service.
Article about the incident: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveillance-toddler-photo.html
In the article it says the police were alerted but they said no crime had been committed. Google still closed all of the man's accounts.
One does not have a right to privacy if they are violating the law. So I see no disconnect there. Privacy is not about hiding illegal materials.
A company does not have right to invade your privacy and go on a fishing expedition to determine if you are violating the law.
I agree completely. But they do have the right to determine if you are storing illegal material on their servers, so it's a little more complicated than that.
Legally, I think you are incorrect, even if it is distasteful it’s not illegal.
Essentially what you are saying is that privacy is NOT a fundamental human right.
Totally incorrect. What I’m stating explicitly is you dont have a right to privacy for illegal materials.
All big companies.
And this: " Chief Privacy Officer of the U.S. Department of Justice" & Google - that is like appointing an arsonist as fire chief. After the Snowden leaks, the FBI pressure Apple NOT to fully encrypt backups etc in iCloud, anyone who believes the title of "Chief Privacy Officer" in a government agency is not doing the opposite of the title is nuts.
Caving to pressure to not encrypt backups (and other things) back in 2018 (reported in 2020) is essentially a huge back door for every government worldwide.
That is not illegal to do. Apple needs to just do it and force the governments to pass a law to make it illegal over the vociferous opposition of people who care about privacy and liberty.
* https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ps-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT
A government that is operating outside of the law - e.g. the DOJ/FBI pressure them into not encrypting iCloud backups (or encrypting using known keys) needs to be challenged. Large companies like Apple are in a perfect position to do so.
As far as the communist Chinese party - or the for that matter the US' FBI - other authoritarian, fascist or socialist entity if everyone always caves for money, eventually the money won't do them much good.
The problem is that in the (perhaps only historical) US at least the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, not enumerated liberties. That has been reversed in many people's minds, but it is still true: there is no law that prohibits encrypting everything (iCloud etc) using on device keys but Apple caved to tyrannical pressure from the FBI/DOJ.
If it is legal to protect privacy, Apple should be doing so. Compromising it away a little at a time will result in even more of a surveillance state than we have. Snowden showed how bad it was, only on device encryption will prevent it from continuing.
Well by the same token you can also say that you don't have a right to privacy if there is an implication to national security in some way, shape or form. Considering how broad the term "national security" is you might as well give up on your right to privacy completely(for a greater good of course).
Unless you expect Apple to invade a foreign country Putin-style with tanks and deposit its government, Apple ( just like any other local or foreign business ) has to obey the laws of the foreign countries it's operating in , or accept withdrawing its business from it. That's how it works around the world, including for foreign-owned businesses that operate in the US.
Now, arguing that Apple should stop doing business in countries where it cannot impose its privacy policy is one thing ( and not without merit ), but arguing that Apple should act anyway it wants in any country it wants is beyond naive ( and a rather dangerous ideology ).
At the "risk" of hate replies, I must ask: Why are you here if that is the way you feel? Can you at least give Apple "credit" of being the lesser of evils? Or are you just a troll determined to literally "upset the Apple cart?"