But thank you for one more demonstration that even the HN crowd can’t reliably give or deny informed consent here.
I actually couldn't get Photos address search to work right in my testing before writing my previous comment, even with a geotagged photo that I just took. So I'm not sure whether I have some setting disabled that prevents it.
The only match was via character recognition of a printed form that I had photographed.
To be clear, I meant that it was a nonissue for me, because I don't geotag my photos (except in that one test). Whether it's an issue for other people, I don't know.
One of the problems with iPhone lockdown is that it's a lot more difficult to investigate how things work technically than on the Mac.
By saving them from any source other than the camera app you’ve configured to not use geo-tagging.
My Photos library contains camera snapshots and screenshots, nothing else.
For what it’s worth, I’m surprised that you never save photos to your phone that you didn’t take yourself. Do people not send you interesting pictures? Pictures of yourself?
I don't even use Photos app on Mac anymore. They've ruined it compared to the old iPhoto. I just keep my photos in folders in Finder.
I don't personally have a strong feeling for or against this particular feature, since I don't use geotagging at all, so it doesn't affect me. I'm neither endorsing nor condemining it offhand. I'll leave it to other people to argue over whether it's a privacy problem. It could be! I just lack the proper perspective on this specific issue.
The issue is much deeper for anyone who has remotely worked with EXIF data for any creative or professional work they do.
I suppose in some sense it is, as it a reverse-geo lookup service, but it's also no where near to the front in the location privacy war.
Cell phone providers basically know your exact position at all times when you have your phone on you, credit card companies know basically everything, cars track driving directly, etc. etc.
I can see why some people would be up in arms but for me this one doesn't feel like missing the forest for the trees, it feels like missing the forest for the leaves.
But the argument that this specific feature represents some new beachhead in some great war against privacy strikes me as little more that clickbate hyperbole. If Apple really wanted to track people’s locations, it would be trivial for them to do so, without all this cloak and dagger nonsense people seem to come up with. Equally, is a state entity wanted to track your location (or even track people’s locations at scale), there’s a myriad of trivially easy ways for them to do so, without resorting to forcing Apple to spy on their customers via complex computer vision landmark lookup system.
The interesting thing is that Apple has created a cathedral of seemingly objective sexy technical details that feel like security. But since it’s all trust, feelings matter!
So my answer is, if it feels like a privacy violation, it is. Your technical comparison will be more persuasive if you presented it in Computer Modern in a white paper, or if you are an important Substack author or reply guy, or maybe take a cue from the shawarma guy on Valencia Street and do a hunger strike while comparing two ways to get location info.
Apple is building a location database, for free, from user's photos and saying it's anonymized.
It's not a service I want, nor one I authorize. Nor are my photos licensed to Apple to get that information from me.
Encryption is only good relative to computational power to break it available to the many, or the few.
Computational power usually seems always available in 10-20-30 years to generally break encryption for the average person, as unimaginably hard it seems in the present. I don't have interest in taking any technical bait from the conversation at hand. Determined groups with resources could find ways.. This results in no security or encryption.
Where on earth did you get that from? The photos app is sending an 8bit embedding for its lookup query, how are they going to build a location database from that?
Even if they were sending entire photos, how do you imagine someone builds a location database from that? You still need something to figure out what the image is, and if you already have that, why would you need to build it again?
> Encryption is only good relative to computational power to break it available to the many, or the few. > Determined groups with resources could find ways.. This results in no security or encryption.
Tell me, do you sell tin foil hats as a side hustle or something? If this is your view on encryption why are you worried about a silly photos app figuring out what landmarks are in your photos. You basically believe that it’s impossible for digital privacy of any variety is effectively impossible, and that you also believe this is a meaningful threat to “normal” people. The only way to meet your criteria for safe privacy is to ensue all forms of digital communication (which would include Hacker News FYI). So either you’re knowingly making disingenuous hyperbolic arguments, you’re a complete hypocrite, or you like to live “dangerously”.
They’re broadly similar services, both provided by the same entity. Either you trust that entity or you don’t. You can’t simultaneously be happy with an older, less private feature, that can’t be disabled. While simultaneously criticising the same entity for creating a new feature (that carries all the same privacy risks) that’s technically more private, and can be completely disabled.
> The interesting thing is that Apple has created a cathedral of seemingly objective sexy technical details that feel like security. But since it’s all trust, feelings matter!
This is utterly irrelevant, you’re basically making my point for me. As above, either you do or do not trust Apple to provide these services. The implementation is kinda irrelevant. I’m simply asking people to be a little more introspective, and take a little more time to consider their position, before they start yelling from the rooftops that this new feature represents some great privacy deception.
Something to consider - location is geo-encoded already into photos and doesn't need this uploaded to Apple servers. Searching can be done locally on device for location.
Apple goes as far as to offer a setting to allow the user to share photos and remove the geocoding from it.
Offering a new feature is opt-in.
Unfortunately, against my better wishes, this only erodes trust and confidence in Apple that if this is happening visibly, what could be happening that is unknown.
It seems trivially possible to do this in a more privacy preserving way: geocode the search query and filter photos locally.
No idea how Apple implements it though.
That’s an interesting question. Something to consider, iOS photos has allowed you to search for photos using the address the photo was taken at. To do that requires the Photos app to take the lat/long of a photos location, and do a reverse-geo lookup to get a human understandable address. Something that pretty much always involves querying a global reverse-geo service.
Do you consider this feature to be a violation of your privacy, requiring an opt-in? If not, then how is a reverse-geo lookup service more private than a landmark lookup service?