It doesn’t matter. Apple still scan our library. This is not their job. They’re not a law enforcement.
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.
German Politician Asks Apple CEO Tim Cook to Abandon CSAM Scanning Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
China will love this feature and that’s just a fact.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
Than God! Since America didn’t step it up. Glad to see other country leaders are stepping wanting to put this to the end. I hope Apple considers it.
Just think how different Sergeant Shultz and Colonel Klink are. Great examples of how different one German can be from another.
First part: technical document released by Apple explains the high level concept.
Second part: Apple has every right to have your iPhone scan it the moment you have iCloud Photos turned on. Turn iCloud photos off and you turn CSAM detection off. There is your control.
Some rather silly comments here trying to justify this unjustifiable software being on hardware rather than iCloud.
Comments about camera on iPhone etc., which actually prove the point, as you can choose not to use the camera, just as you choose most things, but not the software Apple intends to place on your hardware, and even if you don't intend to use iCloud for photos.
In most things Apple have been security and privacy protectors, and all power to their elbow, so it does go against the grain and you can understand then people being so concerned, as it fundamentally calls into question what previously was a massive feather in Apple's cap, and its very public stance against agencies seeking backdoors. You have to wonder what has changed that?
Also interesting to note most do not believe this intended action will safeguard children in any way at all, and in my opinion it may hinder those engaged in trying to stop child abuse/child pornography by pushing the culprits further and further underground.
Good to see a politician seeing through the 'misinterpretation' ideas and calling it what it is, the same as some Apple employees, same as IT specialists and even security specialists BACKDOOR.
So many on this bb want to do anything but acknowledge what this is. SURVEILLANCE and the technicalities of how it does it, or to what extent AT PRESENT are really not the point at all.
Ironic that its a politician now stating their concerns.
With various governments and organisations and judges currently perusing issues that could herald Apple losing court cases, being levied substantial fines by governments, etc. etc., what better leverage it could be from those who have not got the assistance from Apple re: privacy, to ensure a backdoor is put in all Apple devices, hence hardware based rather than cloud based.
Comments about camera on iPhone etc., which actually prove the point, as you can choose not to use the camera, just as you choose most things, but not the software Apple intends to place on your hardware, and even if you don't intend to use iCloud for photos.
In most things Apple have been security and privacy protectors, and all power to their elbow, so it does go against the grain and you can understand then people being so concerned, as it fundamentally calls into question what previously was a massive feather in Apple's cap, and its very public stance against agencies seeking backdoors. You have to wonder what has changed that?
Also interesting to note most do not believe this intended action will safeguard children in any way at all, and in my opinion it may hinder those engaged in trying to stop child abuse/child pornography by pushing the culprits further and further underground.
Good to see a politician seeing through the 'misinterpretation' ideas and calling it what it is, the same as some Apple employees, same as IT specialists and even security specialists BACKDOOR.
So many on this bb want to do anything but acknowledge what this is. SURVEILLANCE and the technicalities of how it does it, or to what extent AT PRESENT are really not the point at all.
Ironic that its a politician now stating their concerns.
With various governments and organisations and judges currently perusing issues that could herald Apple losing court cases, being levied substantial fines by governments, etc. etc., what better leverage it could be from those who have not got the assistance from Apple re: privacy, to ensure a backdoor is put in all Apple devices, hence hardware based rather than cloud based.
Okay so I am confusion.
iOS already scans your photos to identify pets, faces, cars, buildings, trees, etc... how is finding missing and exploited children via the same technology a bad thing? The fact that it alerts a non-profit NGO? It's already a fact that it will not flag naked pics of your 1-week-old during their first bath time, or the suggestive images you send your sexual partners.
The ONLY way you'll be flagged is if you have known images of exploited children on your phone. In this context, "known" is defined as any image that is already uploaded to the CSAM database, and is found to be an IDENTICAL match in your iCloud library.
iOS already scans your photos to identify pets, faces, cars, buildings, trees, etc... how is finding missing and exploited children via the same technology a bad thing? The fact that it alerts a non-profit NGO? It's already a fact that it will not flag naked pics of your 1-week-old during their first bath time, or the suggestive images you send your sexual partners.
The ONLY way you'll be flagged is if you have known images of exploited children on your phone. In this context, "known" is defined as any image that is already uploaded to the CSAM database, and is found to be an IDENTICAL match in your iCloud library.
Abiding by laws includes presumably abiding by laws in China where it instead data be kept in China, and where no doubt if Apple did not comply it would not be on sale in China? These sort of pressures can easily sway a company, even on an issue that was formerly sacrosanct and part of Apple's advertising blurb.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Again total obfuscation about the real point. These comments are on par with someone asking you to dig your own grave, and then suggesting they are doing you a favour as you only have to dig 2ft. down not 6.
The fact is it is a backdoor, it is surveillance on everyone's own hardware.
I agree (except with "they are breaching the privacy of the people": they are breaching the privacy of offenders only) but you make it sounds like it would be fine if a government orders them to give access to the devices data (for CSAM… or other kind of surveillance, because why stop there?).
It was probably not your idea, and I’m probably reading too much "between the lines", but anyway I think it is a serious question that you bring up: what should they do if (when?) a legally elected democratic government order them to grant access to users’ data? We know that now Apple says "we cannot" (for part of it anyway), but if the law says that this or that government entity must have access to users’ data, the choice becomes keep the encryption keys or leave the country, and hope that this government doesn’t (or can’t) decide that this law has extra-territorial validity.
Not easy. But I sure wouldn’t feel more comfortable if it was a government that ordered this scanning. Actually, probably less… ?
The timing is absolute garbage.
Right before new phones and iOS, and after a big 'PR ramp up' year for privacy with iOS 14.5 and ad tracking and all the blowback from Facebook, etc.
Their brand is a discombobulated mess and they have no one to blame but themselves
Right before new phones and iOS, and after a big 'PR ramp up' year for privacy with iOS 14.5 and ad tracking and all the blowback from Facebook, etc.
Their brand is a discombobulated mess and they have no one to blame but themselves
It was an interesting portrayal of mid level functionaries dealing with tyrants above and rabble rousers below, all while keeping the system functioning. This Laurel and Hardy team were the true heroes of the show.
Kudos to this politician. It’s ridiculous more from other countries, especially the USA, haven’t spoken up.
I have already reduced my iCloud storage plan, removed iCloud photos from all devices, removed iCloud iMessage from all but my iPhone, and gone back to encrypted backups on my MBP. I want Apple to reverse course but I bought my iPhone in cash and own it outright. I do not consent to them running scanning software on my phone.
That might be surprising for some people, but in many democracies, there is an actual wide range of polictical parties with a wide range of political stances.
That does include parties and politicians who actually care about privacy.
Because you can disable the above features and you have the ability to use iCloud photos without it. This will be baked into iOS 15 and cannot be disabled unless you opt not to use the features that make the Apple ecosystem what it is and have been part of why people use Apple products.
Will Saudis or Hungarians or Russians get a refund if they don't like the policy in their country after they bought an iPhone 13?
No I didn't think so.
What's the chance of that happening you think?
Messaging and Chat Control
The End of the Privacy of Digital Correspondence The EU decided to let providers search all private chats, messages, and emails automatically for suspicious content - generally and indiscriminately. The stated aim: To prosecute child pornography. The result: Mass surveillance by means of fu
www.patrick-breyer.de
My point is that it isn't so much about the technology, but a lot more about people's trust in the US government since clearly many people have trusted Apple significantly over the years with a closed iOS system along with their health data, fingerprints and facial recognition data - the latter two stored in the secure enclaves of their devices and not worry about the potential vulnerabilities surrounding it.
Apple's CSAM device scanner can be disabled simply by not using iCloud Photos. People complain that the hashes could be reverse-engineered and new images faked to use those hashes. If that's the case, we'd have seen issues with existing systems that already implement CSAM detection, surely? Besides which, as I understand it, the hashes are made up of two different sources.
Apple means well, but they don't seem to have considered the unintended consequences.
For one, do they really want to be in charge of collecting information on criminal activity of their customers and reporting it to the police? I get that this is the worst of the worst, but what about murder, rape and so on? Those are pretty horrible, too. Is this really something a private company should be doing vs the government?
Second, they seem to be assuming that there will be no bugs and no security breaches, despite ample evidence that this is never, never the case. In the vein of security breaches, they also seem to assume that no hostile government would ever have the power to control what they scan. Again, this enters the area where Apple seems to be choosing how to enforce the law, which is strange and dangerous in a lot of ways.
Finally, they don't seem to understand the PR implications at all. They were obviously surprised by the uproar, which is weird in itself. They also don't seem to have considered that most of their publicity on security has been a refusal to help the government catch terrorists. That plays okay when they are the privacy company, but no so well when they're deciding to break that privacy for a different reason.
For one, do they really want to be in charge of collecting information on criminal activity of their customers and reporting it to the police? I get that this is the worst of the worst, but what about murder, rape and so on? Those are pretty horrible, too. Is this really something a private company should be doing vs the government?
Second, they seem to be assuming that there will be no bugs and no security breaches, despite ample evidence that this is never, never the case. In the vein of security breaches, they also seem to assume that no hostile government would ever have the power to control what they scan. Again, this enters the area where Apple seems to be choosing how to enforce the law, which is strange and dangerous in a lot of ways.
Finally, they don't seem to understand the PR implications at all. They were obviously surprised by the uproar, which is weird in itself. They also don't seem to have considered that most of their publicity on security has been a refusal to help the government catch terrorists. That plays okay when they are the privacy company, but no so well when they're deciding to break that privacy for a different reason.
There’s a group of strangers out there that would just like to get your house keys to look at all your images anytime they like and compare them against a database you don’t have control over in order to make judegements about you. There literally nothing that could go wrong here.