Apple has announced they'll be doing this check?
What exactly do you think is the same as before?
>The exact same outcome can happen regardless of whether it's done on or off device. iCloud has _always_ been a known vector for authorities to peek.
That's neither here, nor there. It's another thing to peak selectively with a warrant of sorts, than to (a) peak automatically in everybody, (b) with a false-positive-prone technique, especially since the mere accusation on a false match can be disastrous for a person, even if they eventually are proven innocent...
>That's neither here, nor there. It's another thing to peak selectively with a warrant of sorts, than to (a) peak automatically in everybody, (b) with a false-positive-prone technique, especially since the mere accusation on a false match can be disastrous for a person, even if they eventually are proven innocent...
I do not believe that iCloud CSAM server side matching ever required a warrant, and I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea. It quite literally is (a) peak automatically in everybody.
Regarding (b), with this way - thanks to them publishing details on it - there's more transparency than if it was done server side.
>especially since the mere accusation on a false match can be disastrous for a person
As noted elsewhere in this very thread, this can happen whether client or server side. It's not unique in any way, shape or form to what Apple is doing here.
The same checking when you synced things to iCloud. As has been repeated over and over again, this check happens for iCloud Photos. It's not running arbitrarily.
Your photos were compared before and they're being compared now... if you're using iCloud Photos.
Who said it's running "arbitrarily"? Who said it's not about iCloud Photos?
>Your photos were compared before and they're being compared now... if you're using iCloud Photos.
They weren't always compared, they started being compared a few years ago, and they moved to comparing them with a new scheme now.
Both are bad, and not the responsibility of a company selling phones - and also a bad precedent (now it's "think of the children", tomorrow "think of the country", then "think of those with wrong ideas", then "think how much money insurance companies can save" and what have you).
As for your suggestions to just "stop using iCloud Photos", how about we get to enjoy the features we bought our devices for, without stuff we didn't ask for and don't want?
Apple is not just a hardware company and there is no obligation for them to host offending contents on their servers - just as Dropbox, Google, and so on would maintain with theirs.
>As for your suggestions to just "stop using iCloud Photos", how about we get to enjoy the features we bought our devices for, without stuff we didn't ask for and don't want?
It's odd to say that a business shouldn't be allowed to police what's on their platform, given we're on a forum explicitly enabling entrepreneurs.
What if the post office announced they were installing a man with a scanning machine in your home who would scan your letters before they left your house?
It's the same outcome. The same process. Just inside your house instead of out in the mail system. They're exactly the same, except somehow it's not.
If that scanning machine didn't reveal the contents of my mail, and then ensured that it wasn't able to be given out in-transit? Yeah, I'd potentially be fine with it - but I'll leave this answer as a hypothetical since it's all theory anyway.
The point here is that you're choosing to use the mail system and you're thus choosing to play by those rules. Given that these checks happen for iCloud you're effectively making the same agreement.
That is a totally bogus comparison.
The post office 100% does NOT can the content of every piece mail they handle.
Not even close to the same scenario as Apple/governments being able to continually and silently check your phone/photo library for images on their watch list.
If someone discovers a way to reliably generate adversarial images they can send such images to someone else to iSWAT them.
You could literally piggyback on the directories that Macs use to sync to iCloud Drive, get an image in there, and then it gets scanned by iCloud. This is not some new theoretical attack - and in fact, this would be the "hack" for the new one as well since it requires iCloud sync to trigger anyway.
