Apple reserves the right at all times to determine whether Content is appropriate and in compliance with this Agreement, and may screen, move, refuse, modify and/or remove Content at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, if such Content is found to be in violation of this Agreement or is otherwise objectionable.
You must not have been paying attention for the last 20 years.
I don't think they have been doing server-side scanning until now, hence the publicity. Do you have any evidence that shows they've been doing this before?
I wasn’t able to find the whole video though.
No time to watch, but. https://www.ces.tech/Videos/2020/Chief-Privacy-Officer-Round...
> Currently, although Apple holds the keys to view Photos stored in iCloud Photos, it does not scan these images
It also seems weird that the EFF wouldn't have complained about this before if Apple was known to be doing server-side scanning for some time now.
I also am not going to watch through an hour video, but I scanned the transcript and I didn't see anything that said that Apple currently (at that time) scanned content.
If you don’t trust Apple why would you use iCloud anyway? Makes no sense.
I just have to point out the ridiculousness of this statement. With your logic any feature in any product can be "turned off" by not using the entire product at all. For example, the radio in my car sounds like shit, I guess I should just stop driving completely to avoid having to hear it.
In reality, this new "feature" will be a requirement of using iCloud Photos. The feature itself cannot be turned off. If your answer is to stop using iCloud Photos, that is no help for the millions of people who currently use iCloud Photos.
> If you don’t trust Apple why would you use iCloud anyway? Makes no sense.
I've trusted Apple for a long time because I felt like they were one of the only companies that cared about consumer privacy. After these actions I am less convinced of that. I'm not sure why that stance is so surprising.
iCloud Photos can be used on Windows, for example. This scanning only applies to iOS devices. You could use iCloud Photos and not be subject to the scanning.
> I've trusted Apple for a long time because I felt like they were one of the only companies that cared about consumer privacy. After these actions I am less convinced of that. I'm not sure why that stance is so surprising.
Nothing about what they're doing is contradictory with privacy beyond what they're already doing. The only reason they're even implementing it this way is because they do care about privacy. They could just not encrypt and scan on the server like Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, Box.com and more.
That's great for the <0.001% of people who use iCloud Photos without an iPhone. Everyone else is SOL.
>Nothing about what they're doing is contradictory with privacy beyond what they're already doing. The only reason they're even implementing it this way is because they do care about privacy. They could just not encrypt and scan on the server like Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, Box.com and more.
False dichotomy. Apple doesn't have to do either of these things.
in any case I've given you the solution on how to use iCloud and not be scanned. Take your photos, sync your iDevice to your computer and manually upload to iCloud photos. there you go.
A subpoena is a lot different than scanning every single photo on every user's device automatically.
> Why do you think all of these companies even do this? lol
Because most companies don't give a shit about privacy? And they will cave at even the slightest government pressure to do so. Honestly it's probably easier for them that way (but worse for the consumer).
> in any case I've given you the solution on how to use iCloud and not be scanned. Take your photos, sync your iDevice to your computer and manually upload to iCloud photos. there you go.
Gee thanks, your "solution" is 1000x harder to use than just using iCloud Photos on your iPhone. One of the biggest selling points of it now is for convenience, and this is pretty obvious so I'm starting to think you're just trolling at this point.
> Because most companies don't give a shit about privacy? And they will cave at even the slightest government pressure to do so. Honestly it's probably easier for them that way (but worse for the consumer).
Most people don’t care. I’m giving you solutions and you’re taking about convenience how hard it is. Plugging in your phone is trivial. I assume you’re going to stick with iCloud even despite this “privacy” issue? If not, what are you switching to?
It's not black or white. Clearly Apple does care more about privacy than most other tech companies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of them when they make a mistake.
Also, Apple doesn't use e2ee now. AFAIK it's possible for them to decrypt the contents of your iCloud content, and they will do so and forward your data if legally required to.
> Most people don’t care. I’m giving you solutions and you’re taking about convenience how hard it is. Plugging in your phone is trivial.
I don't see what is so hard for you to understand about this - because of Apple's decision, I gain nothing and lose privacy. I shouldn't have to jump through extra hoops to avoid that, and it's reasonable to dislike Apple's position on this. In order to replicate the same functionality I would have to remember to sync my phone every night, and if I ever forgot and my phone died, I just lost data. Yours is an indefensible position when a MUCH easier solution exists today.
> I assume you’re going to stick with iCloud even despite this “privacy” issue? If not, what are you switching to?
That's a bold assumption. I haven't decided yet, for a couple reasons. One is that it's a pain in the ass to switch providers, so I'm going to wait and see if Apple actually follows through with it. Two is that it's possible that Apple is only implementing this so that they can in fact implement full e2ee and then tell law enforcement to kick rocks when they ask for user data (only allowing them to see the CSAM results before they are uploaded to the cloud). I might be willing to accept that compromise, but it's not clear that that is what their plan is.
The issue is that Apple previously was not intruding into their user's privacy (at least publicly), but now they are.
It sounds like your argument is that Apple could have been doing this all along and just not telling us. I find that unlikely mainly because they've marketed themselves as a privacy-focused company up until now.