The difference is the ease with which they can demur. Before, it would be a whole heck of a lot of new, additional work. They also have the problem of actually introducing it without being noticed, or having to come up with some cover for the new behavior.

Now? Well now it's real simple. It will even conveniently not expose the actual images it's checking for. Apple now has significantly less ability to rationally reject the request based on the effort and difficulty of the matter.

Even Apple's own reasons to reject the request have decreased. It would have legitimately cost them more to fulfill this request before, even if China did want to play hardball. Now, they have greater incentive to go along with it.

As far as I'm aware, this system is not new. It is only moving from the cloud to the local device. If the cloud was already compromised, which it seems like it would be in your logic since all the same reasoning applies, I don't understand the complaints about it moving locally.

In my mind there are two possible ways to view this.

We could trust Apple last month and we can trust them today.

We couldn't trust Apple last month and we can't trust them today.

I don't understand the mindset that we could trust Apple last month and we can't trust them today.

>It is only moving from the cloud to the local device.

But isn't that exactly why this is such a big deal? It sets a precedent that it's ok that devices are scanning your local device for digital contraband. Sure, right now it's only for photos that are going to be uploaded to iCloud anyway. But how long before it scans everything, and there's no way to opt out?

I don't see this as so much a question of apple's trustworthiness, I see it as a major milestone in the losing battle for digital privacy. I don't think it will be long before these systems go from "protecting children from abuse" total government surveillance, and it's particularly egregious that it's being done by apple, given their previous "commitment to privacy".

>But how long before it scans everything, and there's no way to opt out?

Do we think this is detectable? If yes, then why worry about it if we will know when this switch is made? If not, why did we trust Apple that this wasn't happening already?

That is the primary thing I don't understand, this fear rests on an assumption that Apple is a combination of both honest and corrupted. If they are honest, we have no reason to distrust what they are saying about how this system functions or will function in the future. If they were corrupted, why tell us about this at all?

It feels like you're viewing this as a purely hypothetical question and ignoring reality. No company is 100% good or bad, and it doesn't make any sense to force all possible interpretations into good/bad.

>If not, why did we trust Apple that this wasn't happening already?

I do not trust Apple. I don't really trust any major tech company, because they put profit first, and everything else comes second. I believe that a company as large as apple is already colluding with government(s) to surveil people, because if a money-making organization is offered a government contract that involves handing over already collected data, and it was kept secret by everyone involved, why would they refuse? I know that's very cynical, but I can't see it any other way.

But that's beside the point, which is that what apple is doing is paving the way for normalization of mass government surveillance on devices that we're supposed to own.

>If they were corrupted, why tell us about this at all?

So that we can all get used to it, and not make a big fuss when google announces android will do the same thing. It's much easier to do things without needing to keep them a secret. This is in no way only about apple, they're just breaking the ice so to speak.

>I do not trust Apple. I don't really trust any major tech company, because they put profit first, and everything else comes second.

Then you should have never been using a closed system like Apple in which they had control over every aspect of it. That is my fundamental point. I'm not saying you should trust Apple. I am saying this shouldn't have changed your opinion on Apple.

>So that we can all get used to it, and not make a big fuss when google announces android will do the same thing. It's much easier to do things without needing to keep them a secret. This is in no way only about apple, they're just breaking the ice so to speak.

I just need more evidence before I believe a global conspiracy that requires the coordination between both adversarial governments and direct business competitors.

You're viewing trust in apple as a binary choice. It is not. Trust is a spectrum like most things. You need to get away from that digital thinking. It's the whole reason we have to challenge government and be suspicious of it. It's the same with companies.

I view trust more as a collection of binary choices than one single spectrum. Do I trust Apple to do X? There is only two possible answers to that (or I guess three if we include "I don't know"). If the answer isn't binary, then X is too big.

In this instance the specific question is "Do I trust Apple to be honest about when they scan our files?". I don't know why this news would change the answer to that question.

Are we going to need to reverse engineer every single Apple update to make sure the feature hasn't creeped into non-iCloud uses? Is the inevitable Samsung version of this system going to be as privacy-preserving? How are we sure the hash list isn't tainted? All of these problems are solved by one principle: Don't put the backdoor code in the OS to begin with.

>Are we going to need to reverse engineer every single Apple update to make sure the feature hasn't creeped into non-iCloud uses?

Did we do this already? If not, why did we assume this didn't exist previously?

>Is the inevitable Samsung version of this system going to be as privacy-preserving?

I don't see how this is Apple's fault. Be angry at Samsung for their system. I don't blame Snap if I have a problem with Instagram Stories.

>How are we sure the hash list isn't tainted?

How did we know the hash list wasn't tainted when doing this comparison on Apple's servers?

>All of these problems are solved by one principle: Don't put the backdoor code in the OS to begin with.

Apple controls the hardware, software, and cloud services. The backdoor didn't need to exist in the OS for there to be a backdoor.

At this point it will be the OS without on-device scanning that wins for me.

It's amazing that Apple is still thinking about moving this idea forward, but they must think they are untouchable and can do what they want.

And it adds insult to injury that two very different images can generate the same NeuralHash value.

>It is only moving from the cloud to the local device.

That's the point. Yesterday someone posted a fantastic TSA metaphor where they are doing the same scans and patdowns but with agents permanently stationed in the privacy of your home where they pinkie promise it will only be before a trip to the airport and only checking the bags you will be flying with.

They are crossing a property boundary:

You know food poisoning is dangerous and you'll be safer with a food taster to make sure nothing you eat is spoiled. I'll just help myself to your domicile and eat your food to make sure it's all safe. I already made a copy of your keys to let myself in. It's for your own good.

> The difference is the ease with which they can demur.

If Apple can be cowed by China into adding fake CSAM hashes by threat of banning iPhone sales, they could be cowed to surveil Chinese citizens in the search for subversive material. It's no skin off China's back if it's harder for Apple -- they'll either make the demand or they won't. This changes basically nothing.

I think that's a too simplistic view.

It's kinda true, but ignores how humans really work. Apple will be pushed around to a degree, but there will be limits. The harder the ask now the less China can ask later. And the more Apple can protest about the difficulty and impossibility and other consequences they will face, the more likely China is to back off.

Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too, and will compromise to make it basically work. But if China makes demands so excessive they get Apple to cut ties, China loses. Apple has the money, demand, customer loyalty, and clout to make things real uncomfortable. Apple would have to pay a hefty price, but if any company can do it... it's them.

So I don't think it's fair to say that no matter what China will just demand whatever whims strike it each day and everybody will play ball or gtfo. That just isn't how shit works.

Apple does have some degree of leverage over the CCP too. I realize its not possible today... but in 3-5 years, Apple may be in a position to move some/all of their manufacturing elsewhere.

The direct job losses are one obvious problem for the CCP but a company like Apple saying "We're moving production to Taiwan/Vietnam/US because of security risks in China" would be catastrophic for the (tech) manufacturing industry as a whole in China. No sane Western based CEO will want to be seen taking that security gamble.

Do I think Apple would do that and forgo the massive Chinese smartphone market? That's another story.

Apple doesn't stand up to authoritarian governments. They give direct access of their systems to the US and Chinese governments already.

Err, Apple allows the CCP to scan iCloud already, and did so willingly and actively.

Tin-foil hat time: Who's to say that they could stand up to them before this system? The system itself could have been proposed by the CCP in the first place. I'll take my hat off now.