There's nothing stopping either Apple or Google from giving users an option to just disable these connected features, globally or per-app. Just allow a "no cloud services" toggle switch in the Photos app, get the warning that $FEATURES will stop working, and be done.
I know why Google isn't doing this, they're definitely monetizing every bit of that analyzed content. Not really sure about Apple though, might be that they consider their setup with HE as being on par with no cloud connectivity privacy wise.
It’s more. It also can create memories “trip to New York in 2020”, “Cityscapes in New York over the years”, or “Peter over the years” (with Peter being a person added to Photos)
Granted they require you to opt-in in order for the photos app to be usable & if you go out of your way to avoid opting in they make your photo-browsing life miserable with prompts & notifications. But you do still have to opt-in.
If you dare turn off Play Protect for example, you will be asked to turn it on every time you install or update anything. Never mind that you said no the last thousand times it asked.
Tech companies love doing this. Apple does the same, so does Microsoft.
If you know some choice isn't right for you (now or forever), the company is feeling extra beautiful today, and you're in luck, you'll get a "Do this now, or I'll remind you later" choice. But then sometimes they just decide that "This is how things are now".
I've had this happen in every environment except Linux, where I get to shoot myself in the foot whenever I want, and sometimes a bit more.
I've used Simple Gallery Pro before but it's not very good.
Currently using Immich but that's not really a general photo app - it's got a narrow use case - so I still use the Google Photos app alongside it quite often.
Specific alternative recommendations that aren't malware welcome.
If (like me) you don't need e2e I can highly recommend Immich for its use-case though.
It's rock solid for me. you can browse folders move, copy, hide small edits. you can't search 'dog' which is a plus, it doesn't scan faces.
see: https://github.com/SimpleMobileTools/General-Discussion/issu...
Unfortunately google's camera app will only open google photos if you click the image preview after taking one. Just doesn't respect the default gallery app setting at all.
This feature is some new "landmark" detection and it feels like it's a trial balloon or something as it simply makes zero sense unless what they are categorizing as landmarks is enormous. The example is always the Eiffel tower, but the data to identify most of the world's major landmarks is small relative to what the device can already detect, not to mention that such lookups don't even need photo identification and could instead (and actually already do and long have) use simple location data and nearby POIs for such metadata tagging.
The landmarks thing is the beginning, but I feel like they want it to be much more detailed. Like every piece of art, model of car, etc, including as they change with new releases, etc.
That's the problem with all those implementations: no feedback of any kind. No list of recognized tags. No information of what is or is to be processed. No nothing. Just magic that doesn't work.
https://github.com/pythongosssss/ComfyUI-WD14-Tagger
which uses specific models to generate proper booru tags out of any image you pass to it.
More importantly, I know for sure they have this capability in practice, because if you tap the right way in the right app, when the Moon is in just the right phase, both Samsung Gallery and OneDrive Photos does (or in case of OneDrive, used to):
- Provide occasional completions and suggestions for predefined categories, like "sunset" or "outwear" or "people", etc.;
- Auto-tag photos with some subset of those (OneDrive, which also sometimes records it in metadata), or if you use "edit tag" options, suggest best fitting tags (Samsung);
- Have a semi-random list of "Things" to choose from to categorize your photos, such as "Sunsets", "City", "Outdoors", "Room", etc. Google Photos does that one too.
This shows they do maintain a list of correct and recommended classifications. They just choose to keep it hidden.
With regards to face recognition, it's even worse. There's zero controls and zero information other than occasionally matched (and often mismatched) face under photo properties, that you can sometimes delete.
Of course maybe that question has its own answer. Apple markets itself as the last personal computing company where you are the customer not the product so they are held to a higher standard.
What they should do Is do the processing locally while the phone is plugged in, and just tell people they need a better phone for that feature if it’s too slow. Or do it on their Mac if they own one while that is plugged in.
But now that we're talking about these differences, I'd say that Apple users are notoriously complacent and defend Apple and their practices. So, perhaps in some part it is in an attempt to compensate for that? I'm still surprised how we've now accepted that Apple receives information pretty much every time we run a process (or rather, if it ran more than 12 hours ago, or has been changed).
Most people I know of wouldn't care about such a feature other than a breathless sort of "Wow, Apple tech!" So they are building something which is intended to win over privacy conscious people, kudos to them, everyone stands to benefit. But the most basic custom in that subculture is consent. So they built something really great and then clumsily failed on the easiest detail because it is so meaningless to everyone except that target audience. To that audience, they don't bother criticising google or microsoft (again) because it goes without saying that those companies are terrible, it doesn't need to be said again.
Just because it can’t be “appreciated” by all users doesn’t mean it’s only “for” a small sub-group.
It seems to me they’re just trying to minimise the data they have access to — similar to private cloud compute — while keeping up with the features competitors provide in a less privacy-respecting way. Them not asking for permission makes it even more obvious to me that it’s not built for any small super privacy-conscious group of people but the vast majority of their customers instead.
You think Trump is bad? Well, Putin is worse. You think Putin is bad? Kim Jong Un is worse.
The issue isn't slowness. Uploading photo library data/metadata is likely always slower than on-device processing. Apparently the issue in this case is that the world locations database is too large to be stored locally.
What kind of capacity can ROM chips have these days? And at what cost?
Perhaps it's not as visible because Google hasn't defaulted to opt-in for most of these? Or because a lot of it is B2B and Google-internal (e.g., a differential-privacy layer on top of SQL for internal metrics)
[edit]: this link was a very vague press release that doesn't say exactly how Google uses it: https://security.googleblog.com/2019/06/helping-organization...
Google, on the other hand, uploads photos to their server and does the analysis there.
There is the infamous case of the parents who Google tried to have arrested after they used their Android device to seek medical assistance for their child during lockdown. Their doctor asked them to send images of the problem, and Google called the police and reported the parents for kiddie porn.
> “I knew that these companies were watching and that privacy is not what we would hope it to be,” Mark said. “But I haven’t done anything wrong.”
The police agreed. Google did not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil...
Google refused to return access to his account even after the police cleared him of wrongdoing.
This is why I constantly work to help people reduce their dependence on Google. Screw that. If anyone ever tells you that they rely on Google for anything, show them this article.
But I definitely live in fear of Google fucking up and disabling my account.
The parents Google tried to get arrested in the story above do not agree.
> When Mark’s and Cassio’s photos were automatically uploaded from their phones to Google’s servers, this technology flagged them. Jon Callas of the E.F.F. called the scanning intrusive, saying a family photo album on someone’s personal device should be a “private sphere.” (A Google spokeswoman said the company scans only when an “affirmative action” is taken by a user; that includes when the user’s phone backs up photos to the company’s cloud.)
Google not only automatically uploaded their images to their server, it analyzed those images and reported the users to the police for kiddie porn based on a single false positive.
I never enable cloud backups, because it means my shit is sent somewhere.
Then they proceed to claim those automatic backups are an "affirmative action" that justifies them scanning the contents of your images as well.
When setting up a new phone (and many times thereafter) they prompt you to enable photos backup. It's not on by default if I remember correctly.
You keep saying that, but it remains false. The parents explicitly opted in to sending their photos to Google.
If you care about not sending photos to Google, it's pretty obvious how to not have that happen.
IMO, Google is not the bad guy here, although when it was explained to them that the photos were legitimate, they should definitely have reenabled the account.
I'm OK with Google scanning photos that I send to them that will be stored on their servers. Honestly, how can they not?
About weekly it prompts me with a huge popup whether I want to continue without backup, with "enable backup" selected by default. If I deselect this I'm prompted with another popup asking me to back up specific selected photos. If I misclick either of these (which is easy, since they pop up after briefly showing my photos which I'm actively trying to tap on), then Google will start hoovering up all my photos without confirmation.
Their "consent" form is user-hostile and it's disingenuous to hold it as an example of Google protecting privacy.
Pro tip: install Google Gallery which (ironically) is effectively a de-Googled Photos. Unfortunately it's also stripped down in other ways but it suffices for simply viewing photos on your own device.
It's sort of the crime of "contempt of court", but after the fact: receiving a judge's prescription about how you must interpret a law during a case, but then going right back to using a different interpretation when you leave court.
> Google, on the other hand, uploads photos to their server and does the analysis there.
The comment you're replying to (and the whole sub-thread in fact) isn't about if how Apple is doing it is the best/worst way, but rather before they do it, they don't ask for permission. Regardless of how they technically do it, the fact that they don't ask beforehand is what is being argued about here.
(I agree this is the point in contention, I just don’t understand it).
If that were true, the whole homomorphic encryption stuff would be pointless.
Sending everything to a server is, however, how Google's service works.
You don't need any encryption to process locally.
Apple handles those tasks on the users own device(s) for privacy reasons.
Apple, Google, Microsoft and Samsung, they all seem to be tripping over each other in an effort to make this whole thing just as much ass-backwards as possible. Here is how it, IMHO, should work:
1) It scans stuff, detects faces and features. Locally or in the cloud or not at all, as governed by an explicit opt-in setting.
2) Fuck search. Search is not discoverable. I want to browse stuff. I want a list of objects/tags/concepts it recognized. I want a list of faces it recognized and the ability to manually retag them, and manually mark any that they missed. And not just a list of 10 categories the vendor thinks are most interesting. All of them. Alphabetically.
3) If you insist on search, make it work. I type in a word, I want all photos tagged with it. I click on a face, I want all photos that have matching face on it. Simple as that. Not "eventual consistency", not "keep refreshing, every 5th refresh I may show you a result", or other such breakage that's a staple experience of OneDrive Photos in particular.
Don't know about Apple, but Google, Microsoft and Samsung all refuse #2, and spectacularly fail at #3, and the way it works, I'm convinced it's intentional, as I can't even conceptualize a design that would exhibit such failures naturally.
EDIT:
4) (A cherry on a cake of making a sane product that works) Recognition data is stored in photo metadata, whether directly or in a sidecar file, in any of a bunch of formats sane people use, and is both exported along with the photos, and adhered to when importing new photos.
This is a completely hypothetical scenario. If users with such requirements actually existed, PinePhones and similar devices would be significantly more popular.
Why would an open source android distro be more trustworthy?
Trust has many meanings but for this discussion we’ll consider privacy and security. As in, I trust my phone to not do something malicious as a result of outside influence, and I trust it to not leak data that I don’t want other people to know.
Open source software is not inherently more secure nor more private. However it can sometimes be more secure (because more people are helping find bugs, because that specific project prioritizes security, etc.) and is usually more private. Why? Because it (usually) isn’t controlled by a single central entity, which means there is (usually) no incentive to collect user data.
In reality it’s all kind of a mess and means nothing. There’s tons of bugs in open source software, and projects like Audacity prove they sometimes violate user privacy. HN-type people consider open source software more secure and private because you can view the source code yourself, but I guarantee you they have not personally reviewed the source of all the software they use.
If you want to use an open-source Android distro I think you would learn a lot. You don’t need to have a CS degree. However unless you made massive lifestyle changes in addition to changing your phone, I’m not confident it would meaningfully make you more secure or private.
I have other reasons, perhaps, to prefer open source stuff, but I am not ready to assume it is inherently more private or secure.
When they start opting me into photo scanning I lose a bit of trust. The homomorphic encryption makes it less bad. The relative quiet around the rollout of the feature makes it worse. Apple's past attempt to start client side scanning makes it worse. Etc...
The net result is I trust them a bit less. Perhaps not enough to set my apple devices on fire yet, but a bit.
Edit: Not to mention that many of the newer banks don't even have web banking. It's app only. Of course, its your choice to open an account there though
My charitable interpretation is that the app allows a greater verification process so the bank trusts it more and it's "to protect me, the user". But then, the website lets me transfer $100,000 using a multitude of other methods if I want (wire, e-check, create carrier check), so... yeah.
Likewise, you need to trust your spouse or significant other, but if there are obvious signs of cheating, then you need to be suspicious.
An essential part of trust is not overstepping boundaries. In this case, I believe that Apple did overstep. If someone demands that you trust them blindly and unconditionally, that's actually a sign you shouldn't trust them.
That's certainly a take, which you're clearly entitled to take. I don't disagree with the point that you make; this ought to have been opt in.
What you should do now is acknowledge this in your original post and then explain why they should have been more careful about how they released this feature. Homomorphic encryption of the data reframes what you wrote somewhat. Even though data is being sent back, Apple never knows what the data is.
Do you mean my original blog post? The one that not only mentions homomorphic encryption but also links to Apple's own blog post about it? I don't know how that can "reframe" what I wrote when it already framed it.
Wow, that's some apology. Everything after those words is an insult.
I also appreciate Ente's Guest View[1] that lets you select the photos you want to show someone in person on your phone to prevent the issue of them scrolling too far.
[0] https://github.com/ente-io/ente
What if you're a user and you don't care about searching for "dog" in your own photos, you might not even use the Photos app, but apple still scans all your photos and sends data off device without asking you?
Perhaps this complicated dance works, perhaps they have made no mistakes, perhaps no one hacks or coerces the relay host providers... they could still have just asked for consent the first time you open Photos (if you ever do) before starting the scan.