Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.

On 06-Aug-21 10:26 am, Anonymous wrote:
> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>

One issue with this, which perhaps reflects a growing perception amongst
manufacturers that people don't really own their devices, is that the
system involves consuming computation and storage resources on the device.

<https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summary.pdf>
summarises the techniques involved. Of particular note is the statement
on page 4.

"Apple further transforms this database into an unreadable set of
hashes, which is securely stored on users’ devices."

This database has no upper limit on its size. As child safety
organisations identity more child abuse material, the number of hashes
will increase.

It is unclear to what extent, if any, Apple would be able to detect if
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had been
subverted by various security agencies, notably the CIA and FBI, to
allow them to use the system to detect non-child abuse images. There is
repeated mention of a "visual derivative" but no definition of the term.

We also see that Apple will disable a person's iCloud account based on
the operation of the system, rather than waiting to see whether any
criminal charges are laid. We've seen with Facebook and YouTube how
automated processes can lead to unfair treatment.

But I've never been motivated to buy an Apple product anyway.

Sylvia.

Am 06.08.21 um 04:59 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> We also see that Apple will disable a person's iCloud account based on
> the operation of the system, rather than waiting to see whether any
> criminal charges are laid. We've seen with Facebook and YouTube how
> automated processes can lead to unfair treatment.
>
> But I've never been motivated to buy an Apple product anyway.

Very much the same way Blackberry opened their system after totalitarian
regimes in India and on the Arabian peninsula forced Blackberry to give
them a way to monitor the communication.

That killed the reputation and as a consequence the business model of
Blackberry. For businesses the system was not acceptable anymore.

Chances are that Apple is committing a similar kind of suicide because
iMessage is very important to attract useres.

And to make one thing clear IMHO: *Android is no alternative solution*.

> Sylvia.

Joerg

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Sylvia Else wrote:

>On 06-Aug-21 10:26 am, Anonymous wrote:
>>Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>
>
>One issue with this, which perhaps reflects a growing perception
>amongst manufacturers that people don't really own their devices, is
>that the system involves consuming computation and storage resources
>on the device.
>
><https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summa
>ry.pdf> summarises the techniques involved. Of particular note is the
>statement on page 4.
>
>"Apple further transforms this database into an unreadable set of
>hashes, which is securely stored on users’ devices."
>
>This database has no upper limit on its size. As child safety
>organisations identity more child abuse material, the number of
>hashes will increase.
>
>It is unclear to what extent, if any, Apple would be able to detect
>if the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had been
>subverted by various security agencies, notably the CIA and FBI, to
>allow them to use the system to detect non-child abuse images. There
>is repeated mention of a "visual derivative" but no definition of the
>term.
>
>We also see that Apple will disable a person's iCloud account based
>on the operation of the system, rather than waiting to see whether
>any criminal charges are laid. We've seen with Facebook and YouTube
>how automated processes can lead to unfair treatment.
>
>But I've never been motivated to buy an Apple product anyway.
>
>Sylvia.

It makes me wonder how much of these images and videos were actually
watched by the people who developed these so-called "accurate hashes".
Also it seems these could easily be fooled by putting on a few articles
of clothing.

On 2021-08-06 2:16 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.08.21 um 04:59 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>> We also see that Apple will disable a person's iCloud account based on
>> the operation of the system, rather than waiting to see whether any
>> criminal charges are laid. We've seen with Facebook and YouTube how
>> automated processes can lead to unfair treatment.
>>
>> But I've never been motivated to buy an Apple product anyway.
>
> Very much the same way Blackberry opened their system after totalitarian
> regimes in India and on the Arabian peninsula forced Blackberry to give
> them a way to monitor the communication.
>
> That killed the reputation and as a consequence the business model of
> Blackberry. For businesses the system was not acceptable anymore.
>
> Chances are that Apple is committing a similar kind of suicide because
> iMessage is very important to attract useres.
>
> And to make one thing clear IMHO: *Android is no alternative solution*.

What about a completely de-Googled Android system like LineageOS,
CalyxOS or GrapheneOS?

I'm actually curious since I'm shopping for one such device.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 12:57:36 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> It makes me wonder how much of these images and videos were actually
> watched by the people who developed these so-called "accurate hashes".
> Also it seems these could easily be fooled by putting on a few articles
> of clothing.

It's a warrantless search, 24/7, on your own phone, without your permission!
https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summary.pdf

Without you ever having committed a crime, and without your consent, and
without you ever logging into any Apple servers, Apple will forcefully
constantly perform warrantless surveillance 24/7 on your own phone of your
own personal private data without you ever needing to upload any of your
private data to any of Apple's servers.

Prior to that unacceptable warrantless 24/7 surveillance by Apple of your
private and personal data, Apple will gladly accept from any government (in
the future) any listing whatsoever of data that those foreign governments
deem they are interested in looking for without any checks whatsoever on
that data (Apple will accept anything with no limits defined) and Apple
will, always without your permission, put that limitless list on your phone.

Completely outside your consent, Apple is allowing multiple governments (of
Apple's choosing!) to create a listing of those governments' choosing, which
Apple will exercise absolutely no control over (Apple can't even see inside
the lists!), so that Apple will, without your consent, scan your private and
personal data, 24/7, on your own phone, even when you do not log into the
iCloud, and, then Apple will automatically report you to those foreign
governments even if you have committed no crime (with absolutely no
oversight whatsoever!).

I agree with you this is a disproportionate use of power. Trawling billions
of iPhones just in case they find data any government wants to see without
your consent, even when you have never committed any crime whatsoever, with
absolutely zero oversight, is criminal in and of itself.

On 06/08/2021 14:15, John wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 12:57:36 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>> It makes me wonder how much of these images and videos were actually
>> watched by the people who developed these so-called "accurate hashes".
>> Also it seems these could easily be fooled by putting on a few articles
>> of clothing.
>
> It's a warrantless search, 24/7, on your own phone, without your permission!
> https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summary.pdf
>
> Without you ever having committed a crime, and without your consent, and
> without you ever logging into any Apple servers, Apple will forcefully
> constantly perform warrantless surveillance 24/7 on your own phone of your
> own personal private data without you ever needing to upload any of your
> private data to any of Apple's servers.
>
> Prior to that unacceptable warrantless 24/7 surveillance by Apple of your
> private and personal data, Apple will gladly accept from any government (in
> the future) any listing whatsoever of data that those foreign governments
> deem they are interested in looking for without any checks whatsoever on
> that data (Apple will accept anything with no limits defined) and Apple
> will, always without your permission, put that limitless list on your phone.
>
> Completely outside your consent, Apple is allowing multiple governments (of
> Apple's choosing!) to create a listing of those governments' choosing, which
> Apple will exercise absolutely no control over (Apple can't even see inside
> the lists!), so that Apple will, without your consent, scan your private and
> personal data, 24/7, on your own phone, even when you do not log into the
> iCloud, and, then Apple will automatically report you to those foreign
> governments even if you have committed no crime (with absolutely no
> oversight whatsoever!).
>
> I agree with you this is a disproportionate use of power. Trawling billions
> of iPhones just in case they find data any government wants to see without
> your consent, even when you have never committed any crime whatsoever, with
> absolutely zero oversight, is criminal in and of itself.

I think you are exaggerating, John.

https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iphone-vs-android-market-share-3691861/

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 💕

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 15:13:54, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 0
Love it!

[Though I'd want to add "except where your holding that opinion causes
you to do things to the detriment of others (including me)", but that
rather spoils the snappiness of it.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The average US shareholding lasts 22 seconds. Nobody knows who invented the
fire hydrant: the patent records were destroyed in a fire. Sandcastles kill
more people than sharks. Your brain uses less power than the light in your
fridge. The Statue of Liberty wears size 879 shoes.
- John Lloyd, QI supremo (RT, 2014/9/27-10/3)

On 06/08/2021 19:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 15:13:54, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 0
> Love it!
>
> [Though I'd want to add "except where your holding that opinion causes
> you to do things to the detriment of others (including me)", but that
> rather spoils the snappiness of it.]

Ha! 😃 Do /you/ use Apple devices, John?

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:11:07, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>On 06/08/2021 19:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 15:13:54, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
>>wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> []
>>> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 0
>> Love it!
>> [Though I'd want to add "except where your holding that opinion
>>causes you to do things to the detriment of others (including me)",
>>but that rather spoils the snappiness of it.]
>
>Ha! 0
No. My friends (Windows PCs) are rather fond of their iPhones, though.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We'd agreed to overlook each others' families and everything, and get married"
(The Trouble with Harry)

On 06/08/2021 20:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:11:07, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On 06/08/2021 19:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 15:13:54, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
>>> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>> []
>>>> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 0
>>> Love it!
>>>  [Though I'd want to add "except where your holding that opinion
>>> causes  you to do things to the detriment of others (including me)",
>>> but that  rather spoils the snappiness of it.]
>>
>> Ha! 0
> No. My friends (Windows PCs) are rather fond of their iPhones, though.

Thanks.

The thing I like most is that a photograph taken on my iPhone is almost
immediately transferred to both my iMac and my iPad - automagically! :-D

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:30:48, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:11:07, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
>wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>On 06/08/2021 19:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 15:13:54, David Brooks
>>><DavidB@no.mail.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>>>raised):
>>> []
>>>> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 0
>>> Love it!
>>> [Though I'd want to add "except where your holding that opinion
>>>causes you to do things to the detriment of others (including me)",
>>>but that rather spoils the snappiness of it.]
>>
>>Ha! 0
>No. My friends (Windows PCs) are rather fond of their iPhones, though.

Weird. That line at the end of your post that appears as "Ha! 0" above
(at least to me), appeared as "Ha! 0 in the post that I replied to.

The above I cut-and-pasted - I'll retype it manually: "Ha! Do /you/
use Apple devices, John?". I've re-typed it because there's still
something fishy: when I'd cut and pasted it, my cursor was between the
"n" and the "?", _and I couldn't move it to the right_ (to type the
closing " mark). So there's something _very_ fishy there!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The best things in life aren't things. - Bear Grylls (RT 2015/2/14-20)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:30:48, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:11:07, David Brooks <DavidB@no.mail.invalid>
>> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>> On 06/08/2021 19:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 15:13:54, David Brooks
>>>> <DavidB@no.mail.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>>>> raised):
>>>> []
>>>>> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. 0
>>>> Love it!
>>>> [Though I'd want to add "except where your holding that opinion
>>>> causes you to do things to the detriment of others (including me)",
>>>> but that rather spoils the snappiness of it.]
>>>
>>> Ha! 0
>> No. My friends (Windows PCs) are rather fond of their iPhones, though.
>
> Weird. That line at the end of your post that appears as "Ha! 0" above
> (at least to me), appeared as "Ha! 0 in the post that I replied to.

But we know your USENET client (Turnpike/6.07-M)
is not capable of displaying the character in question.

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Csek1gc%24gk3%241%40hunterbd.eternal-september.org%3E

Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8; <=== Turnpike runs in "puzzled mode"
format=flowed

Editor View.

Offset(h) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F

00000EF0 48 61 21 20 F0 9F Ha! ðŸ
00000F00 98 83 20 20 44 6F 20 2F 79 6F 75 2F 20 75 73 65 ˜ƒ Do /you/ use
00000F10 20 41 70 70 6C 65 20 64 65 76 69 63 65 73 Apple devices

F0 9F 98 83

https://www.utf8-chartable.de/unicode-utf8-table.pl?start=128512

U+1F603 😃 f0 9f 98 83 SMILING FACE WITH OPEN MOUTH

Paul

On 06-Aug-21 10:26 am, Anonymous wrote:
> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>
Another use for this system is where an agency plants incriminating
pictures on a victim's phone. Usually, the problem the agency would have
then would be providing probable cause to search the phone to 'find' the
images. This system will do that for them.

But then, of course, Uncle Sam would never do that.

Sylvia.

On 8/5/2021 7:59 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>

We've seen with Facebook and YouTube how
> automated processes can lead to unfair treatment.
>
> But I've never been motivated to buy an Apple product anyway.
>
> Sylvia.
>

On 8/5/2021 7:59 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> We've seen with Facebook and YouTube how
> automated processes can lead to unfair treatment.

LOL, in the past two weeks I've had two comments on Facebook posts
removed by Facebook for violating "Community Standards." This is after
more than a decade on Facebook.

One was a comment on a post from someone who had just bought a house
with a swimming pool, where I was advising on cyanuric acid, phosphates,
total dissolved solids, and chlorine tablets versus liquid chlorine.

One was a comment on a post from an old college roommate who was working
on his old MG. I posted a photo of a restaurant chain that uses old MGs
as salad bars and I suggested that he might save money by doing this.

If Facebook can't get their automated processes to work on something as
simple as text, what are the chances of a photo scanning process not
having false positives?

Of course there's a big difference between looking at content that is
posted, transmitted, or stored in the cloud, versus content that is on a
user's phone, tablet, or computer.

It's likely that Apple will reverse themselves on this, it'll be
interesting to see how many days it will take. The odd thing is why they
would even announce that they are going to do this. If it's not illegal
then they should have just gone ahead and done it. Now, even if they
backtrack, there will be lingering doubt about whether or not they are
doing it anyway.

Maybe this is all a ploy to save the point and shoot camera industry.

In article <sem6qm$o9b$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> If Facebook can't get their automated processes to work on something as
> simple as text, what are the chances of a photo scanning process not
> having false positives?

that's a bogus comparison and demonstrates your sheer lack of knowledge
of what apple is actually doing, which comes as no surprise to anyone.

> Of course there's a big difference between looking at content that is
> posted, transmitted, or stored in the cloud, versus content that is on a
> user's phone, tablet, or computer.

apple is only checking what is uploaded to icloud. content that is kept
local is never checked, nor can it be.

> It's likely that Apple will reverse themselves on this, it'll be
> interesting to see how many days it will take.

guaranteed no.

> The odd thing is why they
> would even announce that they are going to do this. If it's not illegal
> then they should have just gone ahead and done it. Now, even if they
> backtrack, there will be lingering doubt about whether or not they are
> doing it anyway.

apparently you are unaware that child porn *is* illegal.

> Maybe this is all a ploy to save the point and shoot camera industry.

obvious trolling.

On 2021/08/07 9:10 am, nospam wrote:
> apple is only checking what is uploaded to icloud

How stupid can you be to not understand these checks are run ON YOUR iPhone?

The hash is downloaded onto YOUR phone, the scan is run on YOUR photos, the
scan is run on YOUR iPhone, and this scan is performed completely without
your consent because Apple presumes ALL iPhone owners are sex criminals who
deserve warrantless searches.

Nobody is destroying privacy like Apple is doing (even Whatsapp said they'd
never stoop as low as Apple is in iOS 15 to destroy all vestige of personal
privacy).

WhatsApp Says It Won't Be Scanning Your Photos like Apple is doing
https://gizmodo.com/whatsapp-says-it-wont-be-scanning-your-photos-for-child-1847439318
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.

It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just like
all the other services you rent from Apple.

SaaS is a big thing and all the corporate management folks love it because
they no longer have to take responsibility for any of their computer
infrastructure; it all becomes someone else's problem.

That someone else may in the end turn out to be you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 23:26:54, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:30:48, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 20:11:07, David Brooks
>>><DavidB@no.mail.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>>>raised):
[snip]
>>>> Ha! 0
>>> No. My friends (Windows PCs) are rather fond of their iPhones, though.
>> Weird. That line at the end of your post that appears as "Ha! 0"
>>above (at least to me), appeared as "Ha! 0 in the post that I replied
>>
>
>But we know your USENET client (Turnpike/6.07-M)
>is not capable of displaying the character in question.
>
>http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Csek1gc%24gk3%241%40hunte
>rbd.eternal-september.org%3E
>
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=utf-8; <=== Turnpike runs in "puzzled mode"
> format=flowed
>
>Editor View.
>
>Offset(h) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
>
>00000EF0 48 61 21 20 F0 9F Ha! ðŸ
>00000F00 98 83 20 20 44 6F 20 2F 79 6F 75 2F 20 75 73 65 ˜ƒ Do /you/ use
>00000F10 20 41 70 70 6C 65 20 64 65 76 69 63 65 73 Apple devices
>
>F0 9F 98 83
>
>https://www.utf8-chartable.de/unicode-utf8-table.pl?start=128512
>
>U+1F603 ? f0 9f 98 83 SMILING FACE WITH OPEN MOUTH
>
> Paul
[]
I'm used to TP displaying odd characters - a little square, things from
the so-called (though not actually) "extended ASCII" set, or just a
question mark - for things it doesn't know about. The thing is, in this
case, it not only displayed what appears to be an 0 or O (0 I think),
but also _didn't show the rest of the line_ (the "Do /you/ use Apple
devices" part). And did something odd with the cursor positioning too!
Just for curiosity, I'll copy/paste that apparent 0 on a line by itself:
0 (cut and pasted from the line with four > in it in this post {the one
after the [snip]})
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It costs a lot to look this cheap - Dolly Parton

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 16:42:59, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>>Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>
>It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just like
>all the other services you rent from Apple.

I think the poster was talking about his 'phone, not his iCloud space.
(His previous line - which you or a previous poster has snipped - said
something like "Apple scanning on THEIR system: OK.")
So far, although I'm sure they're looking into it, I don't think Apple
_let_ (put out for rental) most iPhones, they _sell_ them. (The
confusion not helped - in UK at least, but I think elsewhere too - by
network operators selling 'phones on long-term staged-payment
arrangements _combined_ with service rental/subscription.)
>
>SaaS is a big thing and all the corporate management folks love it because
>they no longer have to take responsibility for any of their computer
>infrastructure; it all becomes someone else's problem.

Until "someone else" goes bust, or, more likely, their system has a
problem they say is peculiar to you and they refuse to sort it.
>
>That someone else may in the end turn out to be you.
>--scott
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It costs a lot to look this cheap - Dolly Parton

On 8/7/2021 9:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>
> It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just like
> all the other services you rent from Apple.

It's not the scanning of images on iCloud that is the concern of users
and privacy organizations like Electronic Frontier Foundation, it's
scanning on the device; the device is not something you rent from Apple.
As an article in Computer World stated "The difference between those
systems and this one is that analysis takes place on the device, not on
the company servers."

EFF stated: "it’s impossible to build a client-side scanning system that
can only be used for sexually explicit images sent or received by
children. As a consequence, even a well-intentioned effort to build such
a system will break key promises of the messenger’s encryption itself
and open the door to broader abuses. That’s not a slippery slope; that’s
a fully built system just waiting for external pressure to make the
slightest change."

Another concern is that this technology could actually end up creating
more danger for children. The Center for Democracy and Technology has
said that it is “deeply concerned that Apple’s changes in fact create
new risks to children and all users, and mark a significant departure
from long-held privacy and security protocols.”

Apple needs to find a face-saving way to back down from the on-device
scanning that is reportedly built into iOS 15 and do the scanning only
of images stored on their iCloud servers or transmitted via iMessage,
Facetime, etc..

On 8/7/2021 9:06 AM, John Robertson wrote:

<snip>

> How stupid can you be to not understand these checks are run ON YOUR
> iPhone?

I'm sure the he understands it. Not sure what he thinks what the upside
of lying about it actually is.

<snip>

> Nobody is destroying privacy like Apple is doing (even Whatsapp said they'd
> never stoop as low as Apple is in iOS 15 to destroy all vestige of personal
> privacy).

I guess they'll have to change the message at
<https://www.apple.com/in/privacy/> if and when this client-side
scanning launches.

It's likely that Apple will back down on the client-side scanning given
the reaction from privacy organizations like the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, they just need to find a face-saving way of doing so. For
iCloud and iMessage scanning they can do what they want, there was never
an expectation of privacy for anything stored on iCloud or transmitted
via iMessage.

Meanwhile there could be an upside, at least in the short-term, for
iPhone 12 sales with iOS 14.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 8/7/2021 9:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>>> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>
>> It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just like
>> all the other services you rent from Apple.
>
>It's not the scanning of images on iCloud that is the concern of users
>and privacy organizations like Electronic Frontier Foundation, it's
>scanning on the device; the device is not something you rent from Apple.

If you owned your phone, you could install whatever software you wanted on
it. You could repair it yourself, or have someone else repair it. You
could move it from one network provider to another whenever you wanted,
because you would own it.

I suggest reading the contract before you decide that you actually own your
phone. You don't own anything other than the right to do whatever the
provider wants you to do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2021-08-07 12:06, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/07 9:10 am, nospam wrote:
>> apple is only checking what is uploaded to icloud
>
> How stupid can you be to not understand these checks are run ON YOUR iPhone?

nospam knows exactly what happens. But he is programmed to always spin
Apple positively and insu;t those who don't agree with him.