What no one has done before and what I totally don't accept is someone scanning photos on my device, which is what Apple is doing.

The in the cloud vs. on your device aspect of this debate is the most important part and cannot be glossed over.

I really do think it's a weird aspect to fixate on, though.

So long as Apple is only scanning the photos that're being uploaded to its servers, it genuinely doesn't matter to me where that scanning happens. It's a scan that could have happened in either location, and the version where it's happening locally is arguably more private/secure-from-fishing-expeditions. If I don't like that the scanning occurs, I can disable the uploading.

The distinction would matter if the local-scan involved things that weren't being uploaded. But it doesn't, so from my perspective the only difference is an implementation detail.

You can already do that today (I do).

> But it doesn't

Maybe, maybe not. Even if I were to trust Apple 100% it's again a matter of principle (no local scanning).

Imagine the uproar if Microsoft Defender (which comes in-box enabled-by-default on all Windows 10/11 PCs) were to suddenly start scanning photos (it already scans executables and Office documents), hashing them against some opaque "database" and attaching tokens to suspicious ones that would be analyzed when uploaded to OneDrive (again, enabled by default for your Documents\Photos on Windows 10/11 if you use a MS Account).

Then on top of that, imagine Windows was a walled garden a-la iOS and you couldn't uninstall / disable / replace Defender with a different tool (which you totally can today).

I think there would be massive outrage in the press with MS being dragged through the mud for months, and droves of users switching to alternatives (like Linux) overnight. Yet (except for a few privacy / freedom organizations and a little press bleep) Apple gets to shake it off scot-free; I don't understand the dissonance.