[supernova87a]

Is this just a knee-jerk thing to say because it seems like it must be true, and it's fashionable to take an alarmist position about any big company? Is there any critical thought behind such a statement?

Apple has not (in my recollection) sought to exert control over content of what is being said or shared among users. In fact, they seem to keep quite a distance from wanting to know or be responsible for that.

And you're claiming that iMessage is the "primary medium of communication of the citizens"? That is just a little overblown, don't you think?

I would argue, if you have that position, maybe you should spend your energy or concern on cable TV news and other media outlets, who do far worse, with far less share of their markets.

[ksec]

>Apple has not (in my recollection) sought to exert control over content of what is being said or shared among users. In fact, they seem to keep quite a distance from wanting to know or be responsible for that.

You may want to search for Telegram and Apple.

[eoinboylan]

They did remove Parler from the App Store, then reinstated it months later.

[DeusExMachina]

Gab is not allowed on the App Store.

[threeseed]

Gab and Parler both had issues with lack of content moderation.

You can't expect Apple to allow apps which wilfully tolerate illegal content.

[arvinsim]

Is Apple the arbiter of illegal content(adult content is not allowed in the App store)?

[thephyber]

Is that because Gab has a specific type of political content (IMO unlikely) or because Gab fails to keep illegal content or Apple’s minimum level of moderation (the reason Apple removed Parler)? I would bet money on the latter based on the coverage I have seen of Gab’s content.

[avalys]

Well, they decided all of their phones are going to analyze your locally-stored photographs for child photography, and upload questionable photos to the cloud for human review...

They also block apps that involve politically controversial content, or content that they disagree with (e.g. pornography).

[gherkinnn]

> Well, they decided all of their phones

Announced but not (yet) implemented.

> analyze your locally-stored photographs for child photography

Nope. Only the ones on iCloud.

> and upload questionable photos to the cloud for human review

Also a misrepresentation.

> or content that they disagree with (e.g. pornography).

True. And yes, I should have a wank to whatever I please. Legality permitting.

It is so easy to criticise Apple. So many angles to attack them on. So don't misconstrue facts. There's really no need.

[dijit]

> > analyze your locally-stored photographs for child photography

> Nope. Only the ones on iCloud.

Nope. Only the ones your device intends to send to iCloud.

They’re already scanned on iCloud, this was on device scanning before upload. Likely it was a requirement for them to add encryption on the files they store and not have the unsealing keys.

Sort of a pre-emotive avoidance of certain political conversations.

[nomel]

> Only the ones your device intends to send to iCloud.

From a practical perspective, for most everyone, "intending to send" and "on iCloud" is probably a 300ms delta in time.

[dijit]

It’s a capability problem. Once they scan files that are due to be uploaded it’s not very difficult to just.. scan all files.

It’s the motte and bailey.

[nomel]

I don't understand "capability". Surely you realize the capability is already there. Scanning an image and sending a "bad detected" message is absolutely trivial. The image classification algorithms that run locally, used for categorical search (like "dogs") are already there.

[smoldesu]

Well, 900ms now that we have to start up a process to scan it before it's sent off.

[dwaite]

> They’re already scanned on iCloud

They are not. Other file and photo hosting platforms do not encrypt the data, so they are able to scan server-side. The content is encrypted for iCloud, and the encryption keys are not known by the hosting infrastructure.

This means as an example that shared iCloud albums could be used as a distribution mechanism for child pornography, operating silently until one of the members' accounts gets subpoenaed or they confess and share the list.

[threeseed]

Apple uses AES encryption for iCloud Photos: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

Underlying cloud providers that Apple uses e.g. AWS may not have the key but Apple definitely does. And that key could be embedded in a CSAM detection app.

So unless you work for Apple and have definitive proof that they do not have such an app I think we should assume they do.

[universenz]

Correction: They /attempted/ to add an /optional/ feature for your /children's/ account(s).

Do you have kids? Daughters? Would you like better control over what they're exposed to? Being given the tools to track screen time, purchases and control where possible exposure to objectionable content for immature minds isn't a bad thing.. provided it is opt-in. Which the feature always was before the news cycle chose their own narrative.

[GeekyBear]

Isn't Google Play Protect scanning everything on device looking for malware by default already?

In addition to Google scanning everything in your Google account looking for child pornography for the last decade?

>a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston suspect's Gmail account

https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le...

In addition to Google scanning your online account looking for copyright violations?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060405

[supernova87a]

Well, factually incorrect. (although they didn't do a great job of explaining it). They are said to analyze the fingerprint of photos that have been stored in iCloud, and flag if any match the fingerprints of known suspected criminal child porn photos. Photos are not being "taken" from you and uploaded without your consent, or being looked at by other people. Anyway, side point.

And on the 2nd point, they like any company, have to obey the laws of the countries they operate in. Whether they should operate in countries that call for them to censor political content, that's a different question. I'm sure you would say that companies have to follow the local laws.

[shuckles]

Doubly interesting because the root of the discussion was the claim that, “This means we will soon enough have a situation where a corporation controls the primary medium of communication of the citizens” yet the complaint is this corporation obeys the laws of the citizens’ government!

I think there are compelling arguments for making Apple open up which apps can access their SDKs natively, but I think most instances of its implementation will be driven by adversarial governments and bad for user freedoms.