irkli@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I wonder how many complaining actually read even this bland and uninformative article.
At issue I believe (because it is not stated, but discussed elsewhere in better venues) is that UK wants to be able to see inside encrypted comms and files, under the guise of CSAM detection. Apple is right to oppose it.
Arguments based on hypocrisy real or perceived in other venues (china) has nothing to do with this decision its just piss-taking. Give it a rest.
Remember how everyone kicked up a giant stink about apple adding “on device CSAM scanning when uploading photos to iCloud”?
They did that precisely because it would allow them to search for CSAM without giving up any privacy. As I said back when all that rage was happening, if apple don’t get to implement it this way you can be damn sure that the government is going to force them to implement CSAM scanning in a much more privacy-destroying way, and well here we are.
CSAM without giving up any privacy.
Hmmmm funny because security researchers said the opposite, I kinda believe them more?
How did they say it’s giving up privacy?
Like the politicians would have cared. This is just a convenient excuse. Either they would have found another one or they would have said “we can’t trust Apple to scan for this material. The police has to do these scans!”
We were right to oppose it then and we are right to oppose it now.
We were right to oppose it then and we are right to oppose it now.
You were right to oppose doing it in the most privacy conscious way? Or were you against CSAM scanning at all?
It was a government provided list of hashes check against. For me, I don’t like it because I don’t trust 3 letter agencies to not abuse the ability to search every iDevice in the world for arbitrary file hashes.
CSAM, as defined by apple, SPOILER that could be anything, including, and I could rattle off names, anything that threatens the government or those who got their tendrils into it, if we, For example have authoritarians change us to be facist, or re-introduce slavery or segrogation. A mere picture of your bedroom or face could have a somthing in it that allows you to be put into a cohort for later use (legal or not)
Anything scanning messages or media on my device is an absolute NO if I don’t control it.
You did control it though. It only scanned what you were uploading to iCloud, and only during the upload process.
If you turned off iCloud upload it never scanned anything.
so basically apple doesn’t want government spyware on their phones
Misconduct@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Other than their asinine charging cable/accessory situations I consistently find myself agreeing with Apple pretty much any time any government body or group is mad they won’t do something.
linearchaos@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They’re generally on the wrong side of the battle for right to repair and removable batteries too.
But yeah, privacy they almost always have the right of it.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 months ago
how do you reckon?
only time they have been on the consumer’s side was with regards to privacy, refusing to comply with the FBI and now this.
everything else they are pretty anti-consumer, off the top of my head
railsdev@programming.dev 11 months ago
Boo hoo about the headphone back. People are still pissed about this? Please
Jimbo@yiffit.net 11 months ago
Yup. And for good reason
lemme_at_it@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Bluetooth provides another attack vector for the convenience. There is already quite a list of known vulnerabilities. Yes, many of these get patched but as the open standard evolves, so do the hackers. You could turn it off entirely, plug in a cable & forget all that if all you wanted to do was use audio/video.
biddy@feddit.nl 11 months ago
Yes
Yttra@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Absolutely
kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 months ago
like I said, I personally don’t care, but it’s a nice port, universally available and it’s nice to have choice for customers.
Perhyte@lemmy.world 11 months ago
To be fair, those first three points fall squarely under that “charging cable/accessory situations” exception. With Apple, it turns out that’s a pretty broad exception.
TwanHE@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Requiring usb c was something I agreed with. But indeed many times apple has rightly fought for their userbase.