> They are scanning photos chosen for upload.

This is about the 16th time I have seen language just like this used to explain away this concern. I don't know if you realize, but this wording makes it sound like you can select some photos and leave others local. I can find no indication anywhere, including on my phone, that iCloud Photos is anything other than an All Or Nothing singular toggle in iCloud settings. If you have instructions to the contrary, I will be happy to stand corrected.

Seriously, everybody is wording it like this. "Photos you choose..." and similar.

You choose to use iCloud photos. There are several competitors.

Another commenter put it in better terms, so you may understand it:

Suppose we know there are people who smuggle drugs on airplanes on their person for the purpose of something terrible, like addicting children or poisoning people. If I run an airport I could say: to stop this, I'm going to subject everyone who flies out of my airport to a body-cavity search. Tim, and Craig, are you OK with this? If I can say, "Don't worry! We have created this great robots that ensure the body cavity searches are gentle and the minimum needed to check for illegal drugs," does it really change anything to make it more acceptable to you?

I haven’t said anything about what is acceptable.

I was just pointing out a falsehood you wrote about what is actually being done.

No falsehoods, it is the device, even though it is only a specific part of it. I know you got the point I tried (or rather, the other commenter) to make about the part of someone's body meaning "the whole" of a person. Same philosophical view can be applied to the device.

Anyway, someone in here can accept what the other can't, so let's leave at that and let history tells.

Chrome safe browsing feature shows a warning if you browse to a URL which Google have flagged as hosting known malware. If you described this as "Google blocks your device from connecting to servers that don't have their approval" would the listener get an accurate understanding of what was and was not happening?

If Chrome scanned downloaded files for viruses and you described that to someone as "scans your computer for viruses" do you think the listener would come away with an accurate understanding of what was happening and accurate understanding of what they were and were not being protected from?

If BestBuy GeekSquad offered a service to "check your device for problems" and all they did was open your photo collection, would you walk away arguing that it proves the screen and mouse and CPU and disk must function and nobody could expect them to do any more than that, service provided, full marks, that's "the device" checked? Or would you hope that "checking the device for problems" might involve at least exercising all the major features like speakers, wifi, bluetooth, at least once, and preferably with stress and thermal tests?

When the TSA ask you to switch your device on to demonstrate that it's not a bomb, are you on the side of "if the screen lights up, the device is thoroughly and effectively tested and cannot contain anything else" or on the side of "an attacker could make up many ways to make the screen glow while hollowing out the insides, this does not really demonstrate that 'the device' is safe"?

They're not misunderstanding it; you're deliberately using an inaccurate description to mislead people while trying to hide behind "technically not lying", and they're calling you out on it.

Am I, though? Is Apple? Is parent's? It seems "their" (whoever you meant) interpretation of what does and doesn't constitute something is looser than my interpretation.

You said Apple was scanning the device. They aren’t. This is what you are being called out on.

A-ha, so you meant that the device is scanning itself, and not Apple? Clever, very clever technicality.

What you're doing is changing "Two Americans run their homes on solar panels" into "American homes run on solar panels" with the intent of fudging the quantity so that readers assume it means most or all of them, while being able to argue "they are American homes, plural, so it's correct".

"Device scans photos" and "Apple scans device" imply two very different things about how much is scanned, and you're using the latter because you know that if you describe it accurately readers won't be as panicked as you want them to be.

Sure buddy, that’s exactly my point, how would you figure? I do not miss the forest for the trees though.

And expand that "feature" in the future.

>They are scanning photos chosen for upload

That's pretty much scanning on the device.

Yes, scanning is happening on the device. Apple markets that as a feature.

That is different from scanning the device. Saying they are ‘scanning the device’ is a lie.

Yes, Apple could scan the device in future. It’s still a lie to say they are doing it now.

They want to expand that "feature" to 3rd party apps too.

>Yes, Apple could scan the device in future. It’s still a lie to say they are doing it now.

Puh..i am relieved now...wait i don't even have a apple product.

EDIT: For Question below

https://technokilo.com/apple-child-safety-feature-third-part...

>Apple didn’t announce any timeframe about when will they implement child safety features in third-party apps. Apple said that they still have to complete testing of child features and ensure that the use of this feature in third-party apps will not bring any privacy harm

> EDIT: For Question below https://technokilo.com/apple-child-safety-feature-third-part... >Apple didn’t announce any timeframe about when will they implement child safety features in third-party apps. Apple said that they still have to complete testing of child features and ensure that the use of this feature in third-party apps will not bring any privacy harm

The Q&A mentioned has no date or time. No Apple Spokespeople are named. There are no actual quotes. No well known news outlets have mentioned this very consequential detail.

This has all the indicators of a fake.

> They want to expand that "feature" to 3rd party apps too.

Do they? Where have they said that?

> This program is ambitious, and protecting children is an important responsibility. These efforts will evolve and expand over time. [1]

[1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/

That link contains nothing at all about expanding to include 3rd party apps.

Were you aware of that when you posted it?

They didn’t deny either.

I asked where they said it, and you posted the link in response knowing that it didn’t answer the question. Another dishonest move.

So then they are scanning photos on your device.

I'd call that photo scanning... and they are scanning the photos on the device.

Yes, Apple would agree with you, but I assume you would not call it ‘scanning the device’.

At what point would you consider it "scanning the device"? What if they start scanning messages? Browsing history? Downloads? Where do you draw the line?

Do you think they are scanning the device, or just the photos being uploaded?

This isn’t some ambiguous case that needs to be addressed philosophically. They aren’t scanning anything other than the photos being uploaded.

I don't think the distinction matters.

Why not? Don’t you think people should understand the difference?

People do understand the difference. It is only you who seem to be confused about the easily understand words that's people are using.

When people say that the device is being scanned for pictures, they know what that means. So it is fine for them to say that the device is being scanned for pictures.

That isn’t what they are saying.