If Apple can sell people to the FBI and make some quick buck, they will do. Megacorporations don't like to define themselves as a "Phone
company" or a "Toy company". They define themselves as "Manufacturers"
or "Service providers". If Apple thought they could make money selling nuclear submarines, they would.
to a IIci, to a Quadra 700, to a Quadra 610, and finally, when I'd left, a IIfx. It was a step back in a way, but I always wanted to use one of
Hello iPhone users..
What say you about Apple's plan for your phones?
On 06 Aug 2021 at 10:41p, Ogg pondered and said...
Hello iPhone users..
What say you about Apple's plan for your phones?
If they can scan for X then I guess they can (or do) scan for Y,Z etc.
too?
Hello iPhone users..
What say you about Apple's plan for your phones?
"The changes will roll out "later this year in updates to iOS
15, iPadOS 15, watchOS 8, and macOS Monterey," Apple said.
Apple will also deploy software that can analyze images in the
Messages application"
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/apple-explains-how- iphones-will-scan-photos-for-child-sexual-abuse-images/
https://tinyurl.com/yzdv24p5
Oli wrote to Avon <=-
I know why I never 'owned' an iPhone. Apple is a control freak. But
people (especially in the US) embrace surveillance and don't care that much about privacy. Even more to 'protect' their children.
Avon wrote to Ogg <=-
What say you about Apple's plan for your phones?
If they can scan for X then I guess they can (or do) scan for Y,Z etc. too?
But this is it! I think no platform of our time can treat the users so badly. I have been a bad boy and I need my Master megacorp to punish
me, so I am gonna purchase 30 iPhones right now. I can't wait to the models that spank your ass!
I know why I never 'owned' an iPhone. Apple is a control freak. But people (especially in the US) embrace surveillance and don't care that much about privacy. Even more to 'protect' their children.
I've heard Apple has tended to value user privacy though (at least
they've said they do), so this news seems interesting.
And a lot of people seem to think it's okay because they "have nothing to hide".
I've heard Apple has tended to value user privacy though (at least
they've said they do), so this news seems interesting.
I've heard Apple has tended to value user privacy though (at least
they've said they do), so this news seems interesting.
The cynical version of that is that Apple is a hardware company, thus is interested in what gets people to buy hardware.
But all the same, "Oh, your phone is going to spy on you, checking to make sure you don't have any illegal images" does not seem like something overly positive for a hardware company.
And a lot of people seem to think it's okay because they "have
nothing to hide".
I have nothing to hide, but I really wouldn't want somebody snooping through my camera roll. I mean, all you're going to find are pictures of cats, food & bunch of computer equipment (for serial numbers, network port locations etc) - But all the same, I'd rather not have someone digging through.
Re: Apple will start scanning iPhone images
By: Oli to Avon on Sat Aug 07 2021 07:35 am
I know why I never 'owned' an iPhone. Apple is a control freak. But peo (especially in the US) embrace surveillance and don't care that much ab privacy. Even more to 'protect' their children.
And a lot of people seem to think it's okay because they "have nothing to hide".
I've heard Apple has tended to value user privacy though (at least they've s they do), so this news seems interesting.
Nightfox
I've heard Apple has tended to value user privacy though (at least they've said they do), so this news seems interesting.
The cynical version of that is that Apple is a hardware company, thus is interested in what gets people to buy hardware.
Google is an advertising company, thus is interested in what gets advertiser to buy ads.
But all the same, "Oh, your phone is going to spy on you, checking to make sure you don't have any illegal images" does not seem like something overly positive for a hardware company.
If Apple can sell people to the FBI and make some quick buck, they will do. Megacorporations don't like to define themselves as a "Phone
company" or a "Toy company". They define themselves as "Manufacturers"
or "Service providers". If Apple thought they could make money selling nuclear submarines, they would.
I have nothing to hide, but I really wouldn't want somebody snooping through my camera roll. I mean, all you're going to find are pictures
of cats, food & bunch of computer equipment (for serial numbers, network port locations etc) - But all the same, I'd rather not have someone
[...] since the current proposal will send images to
someone at Apple to check (which seems likely illegal),
there's a pedophile in the company who thought this was a
good idea, and a way to get content while hoisting the flag
of anti-pedophilia.
I have nothing to hide, but I really wouldn't want somebody snooping
through my camera roll. [...]
And if I take pictures of documents that could be used to
take out a credit card in my name, I'm doing it with the
thought that anyone looking at those without my permission
are doing it illegally.
And all this aside, it's not like their child porn hashes
are going to be fool proof.
I have plenty to hide -- just nothing illegal.
If anything, we are guilty by default.
I have plenty to hide -- just nothing illegal.
And if I take pictures of documents that could be used to take out a credit card in my name, I'm doing it with the thought that anyone
looking at those without my permission are doing it illegally.
And all this aside, it's not like their child porn hashes are going to be fool proof.
There are literally thousands of laws applying to a given individual in any Western country in a given moment of time. Nobody knows all the laws that apply to them. Not even lawyers.
Spectre wrote to Ogg <=-
Yeah Apple have been getting steadily more Big Brother is watching, for the last 30years... connectivity just makes it more possible now.
Adept wrote to Arelor <=-
Agreed, but companies also have a history of protecting the cash cows
they already have (and oftentimes to their detriment).
Adept wrote to Warpslide <=-
I have plenty to hide -- just nothing illegal.
Arelor wrote to Adept <=-
Next time you say you have nothing illegal to hide, think again.
If anything, we are guilty by default.
There are literally thousands of laws applying to a given individual in any Western country
a given moment of time. Nobody knows all the laws that apply to them. Not even lawyers.
Ah, yeah, good point. We live in a Kafkaesque world.
I'm sure I break laws all the time, with my computer -- just that most of the time I'm taking a
photo I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear, barring complete ignorance.
But I guess I'm in Germany, now (well, until Sunday morning), and there are probably laws agains
taking photos in certain circumstances that I'm
entirely unaware of.
There was an interesting article I'll have to dig up now about how Sony Music was the reason why a "Sony MP3man" didn't become the dominant
music player. The music side drove reliance on DRM into the design,
while other players of the time that didn't have a media company calling the shots did not - and the market chose otherwise.
Exactly. Scanning for pictures of potential child exploitation sounds good, but it could just as easily be used to expose other behaviors a government deems inappropriate. It was not that long ago that same-sex relationships were forbidden in some coutries (and probably still are). The "big brother" possibilities are endless.
followed it all too closely. I guess it could be a case of a corporate tryin to do good and not thinking it through enough?
Adept wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I remember knowing lots of details, and being amazed that you could
peel away the nastiness like an onion, and there kept being yet another layer of really nasty things they were doing, and somehow people
thought they were on the "good" side somehow.
They're scanning iCloud, aren't they? So, the price for free photo storage is monitoring?
Avon wrote to Blue White <=-
Exactly. Scanning for pictures of potential child exploitation sounds good, but it could just as easily be used to expose other behaviors a government deems inappropriate. It was not that long ago that same-sex relationships were forbidden in some coutries (and probably still are). The "big brother" possibilities are endless.
Seems like some recent comments from their spokespeople make it out
like they (Apple) feel misunderstood. I'm really not sure. To be honest
I have not followed it all too closely. I guess it could be a case of a corporate trying to do good and not thinking it through enough?
Spectre wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Shrug. As discussed before, putting data out there on someone elses
server still boggles my mind. The latest Apple equipment I own is a MacClassic with something around MacOS 7 on it, and I only have that
for AppleTalk with the IIgs.
to a IIci, to a Quadra 700, to a Quadra 610, and finally, when I'd left, a IIfx. It was a step back in a way, but I always wanted to use one of
Sysop: | CyberNix |
---|---|
Location: | London, UK |
Users: | 22 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 08:30:36 |
Calls: | 892 |
Files: | 4,436 |
Messages: | 669,210 |