Sign in with Apple allows users to provide minimal information in signing up for accounts; the idea that casual users should know how to setup email aliases is a joke. Apple private relay is the closest to getting grandma to use TOR. Apple is working on stopping pixel tracking in email.
Apple is also leading on the story of user permissions, which is a broken model where you blame users for accepting all the snooping in their lives, for not reading the TOS, and for their failure to negotiate against Walmart.
The relationship is not 3-way as Apple wants users to believe (Apple the defender, users the victim, third-parties the aggressor). The map of the territory is a lot more complex.
is also an early PRISM adopter and well known on cooperation with totalitarian regimes. Censoring Belarus protesters happened several months ago.
The leading narrative on /r/apple is now that "oh this invasive spyware has to exist so that apple can do E2EE iCloud", which is nonsense.
If they had done their job and deployed E2EE iCloud we wouldn't "need" this system in the first place.
It's a classic government pattern:
1. Create the problem (blocking E2EE such that providers have unencrypted copies of your content)
2. Screech and complain about this
3. Demand they do the thing you really wanted in the first place to solve the problem you created
Conducting scans on device instead of on server is your idea of infringement of privacy?
Apple's system keeps everything off their servers until there is an instance where many images on device match known examples of child porn and a human review is triggered.
Google's system scans everything on server, so a single false positive is open to misuse by anyone who can get a subpoena.
We've seen Google data misused to persecute the innocent before.
>Innocent man, 23, sues Arizona police for $1.5million after being arrested for murder and jailed for six days when Google's GPS tracker wrongly placed him at the scene of the 2018 crime
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7897319/Police-arre...
Why are you asking if the poster still beats their wife?
(More specifically, you're pre-supposing scanning must happen, which by itself is a highly debatable assertion)
Your point with Google is absolutely sound, but you seem to stop short of actually accepting that actual privacy (no peeking damnit) is dead on arrival. This is a case of rhetorical stealth goalpost moving whether you intended that or not.
It's an infringement on my right to freedom of speech. Client-side scanning merely opens the door for my device to censor me from sending any message of my choosing and impacts my ability to freely communicate. What is today child abuse, tomorrow is health information and further descends to political and religious memes, or whatever other content is deemed problematic.
Nobody except of a tiny group of nerdy guys (including myself, ofc) is against this apple csam move.
Just ask your parents or your non-tech friends if it's "ok" to scan people's phones to find those "bad pedophiles" in order to jail then up for the rest of their life. You will be surprised how much support Apple's initiative has in the broad public.
And that's why apple made this move. They don't really care for the 3% of people who we belong to. They do it because they know they will have the public and political support.
My Dad is an old teacher today and was formerly a farmer.
My view is he clearly understands these issues and has done since I was a teenager sometime in the last millenium when I followed him around the farm and we talked about stuff.
Maybe your parents are like what you describe but don't underestimate other peoples parents. They might not agree immediately, but if one is careful many actually aren't unreasonable.
Also everyone: stop this defeatist attitude. Instead of asking leading questions, talk about it calmly and politely.
Just explain that once this system is in place it will be used for anything, not just photos (or otherwise bad guys could just zip the files). And when everything is scanned some people will add terrorist material (i.e. history and chemistry books), other will add extremist material (religious writings), blasphemous material (Christian or Atheist teachings in Saudi Arabia), and other illegal content (Winnie the Pooh, man against tank etc in China).
In the paragraph above there should be something to make everyone from Ateheists through Christians, Muslims, nerds, art lovers and Winnie the Pooh fans see why this is a bad idea.
I think you oversimplify this by a lot. No, Apple reputation won't be severely damaged by this move immediately. But I do believe that those "nerdy guys" did a lot to push the Apple brand, and a big part of that push was due to security and privacy. Until recently Apple was always the "privacy brand" and it was hard to argue against it without going the full FSF route of argumentation.
This is no longer the case and I'm sure this will deal some damage over time, even if it only starts with the "screeching voices" of the (nerdy) minority. Maybe not directly to their revenue, but certainly to their reputation. Nothing wrong with shaving off a bit of the prestige of working at Apple ;)
> I don't want to be that guy, but for this job there were lining up 300 more people.
This is the case for many jobs that don't come close to the holy "working at Apple".
I regularly go out with groups of random people on Meetup with no shared technical interest as well and I’m surprised at how much anti tracking and surveillance sentiment there is. It got to the point that out of 25 people on a trip out no one used NHS track and trace because they don’t trust it or don’t own a smartphone. This is across the 20-50 age group.
let them take it then. I try to minimize the blood on my hands.
>Just ask your parents or your non-tech friends
My parents were unhappy with it - they're non technical and not particularly concerned with privacy. I don't think they'll switch but they did ask how to mitigate it. I'm currently scrambling for a (friendly) alternative to icloud photos.
> They don't really care for the 3% of people who we belong to
Welcome to cyberpunk dystopia! Grab a devterm by clockwork (no affiliation), and log in, cowboy.
When the alternative to apple's surveillance is to smash the phone against a wall, and buy something that's much less convenient, suddenly surveillance is not that big of a problem. And this is very important to note because many world's powerful entities are moving in this direction.
I tell them that they can have a reasonable backup and network storage for a small amount of money and I believe their data is much safer on there.
Yes, it won't make a dent in Apple's finances, but at least that person can sleep better not supporting a company they find immoral
I wouldn't be, but that's not the issue, the broad public is gullible, the overwhelming majority probably still believe that Iraq had WMDs before invasion.
All of which could decide to stand up for individual rights, but won't with similar excuses to the one you formulated.
I know in US culture some see it as a strength to be selfish, but yet they complain about the society and the politics this kind of mentality necessarily lead to. If all the others are selfish, why should I be the sucker who pays for having principles?
Because suckers with principles shape a society until they don't.
were against hitler, ussr (inside ussr), unlimited king's powers, religion fanaticism, witch hunting, etc ... in the beginning
today it's surveillance and attempts to legalize such abuses by Apple using some BS cover story intended to create emotional response and this way to fog the real issue: Spyware Engine installation/legalization
EFF lost a lot of credence to me after the Best Buy case. They made this big fuss about how Geek Squad employees were agents of the state for reporting CSAM on a customers hard drive, while doing a requested file recovery. When searched, the defendant had CSAM on 5 different devices. The case was dismissed on a technicality. Never did the EFF mention this. Never did they say they were defending a gynecological doctor who had CSAM on 5 devices. Nope, it was spin city.
Now here we are. Apple has made a privacy preserving anti-virus scanner. It does not upload unknown files as Windows Defender does, it does not scan everything. It scans your photos, for known CSAM images, when you are using iCloud backups, in order to comply with the law that they must scan their hosting services for CSAM. It has a more narrow scope than an anti-virus scanner, and a bigger societal benefit.
We seem to have taken the idea that sometimes bad things are promoted through "think of the children" to mean we must oppose anything involving the protection of children. Our greatest fear in this is the government using a national security letter to search for banned ISIS memes? Let's address that slippery slope when we come to it, and let's note that we do not see Windows Defender or similar doing the same. This is great, I hope it puts a bunch of pedos behind bars.
yeah with the small difference that the virus scanner reports to you, whereas this scanner reports to Apple or authorities.
The virus scanner's purpose is to alert you of viruses on your machine, the purpose of apple's scanner is to engage in blanket surveillance and treat ordinary users like potential consumers of CSAM by default.
Nothing about this is privacy preserving. Privacy would be preserved if Apple refrains from touching any of the information that belong to me and doesn't treat their customers like potential criminals. Imagine you rent parking space for your car and at random intervals, with no reason at all, nothing suspicious has ever happened, the owner comes up, opens your trunk, and rummages through it to check for child porn. That's what Apple is doing.
Since when has renting storage space ever entitled anyone to check what the customer puts in the storage? Do you expect the bank clerk to crawl through your personal safe deposit box as well to prevent crime?
Important to note that in case of the Win 10 Defender and its default settings, executables, and hashes of other files are uploaded to Microsoft automatically.
Much less worse than a csam false positive reporting someone to the authorities, but not really "reporting to you" either.
When Apple's tool thinks it’s found the material it’s looking for, the assumption is that I am a pedophile who collects CSAM.
This is also a bit superficial. If you are breaking the law, you can't decide by yourself whether you are breaking the law of not. That is up to the judge.
While you can quarantine or delete the virus, AV vendor is still getting all the stats. It is not maybe including PhotoDNA matches but cryptographical hashes are included for identical match. It is still perfectly legal to inform CSAM content against these matches, and we can't be sure if that has been made or not.
In case of Windows Defender, what if automatic sample submission is enabled? Uploading and storing a file makes Windows as cloud-provider for this specific scenario, and is required by law to report CSAM content.
Who knows if PhotoDNA is also applied into this content, but that hasn't been told yet? It is legal, there is no need to to tell that.
A few innocent men might be condemned to rot -- or be murdered -- in prison, but Apple has developed a system that mostly protects your privacy and could save the lives of potentially millions of children around the world. The rights of a few harmed innocents must be balanced against the greater societal good.
(/s in case you were wondering)
No, it scans photos for arbitray (fancy) hashes, and Apple chooses to limit it to CSAM images. Nothing about the tech prevents it from being expanded to other kinds of images. And from what I understand, nothing prevents it from being expanded to other filetypes either, does it?
The only thing that ties this tech to CSAM images is Apples promise (and claim) to keep the scope limited.
If you think Apple is on a slippery slope and will just expand this feature without any consideration then why have an issue now ?
Apple already has your unencrypted photos. They could scan it server-side. Or they scan it on your device and simply not tell you. And they can push OS updates without you knowing to enable all of this.
Apple could even push CSAM to your phone and frame you if they wanted to. They control ALL of the keys to your device whilst you are using iCloud and allowing software updates.
This effectively criminalizes anything the state deems unacceptable, which in some countries includes criticizing the ruling party. Is it right for an American company to open their gates to that?
The analogy isn't great. Anti-virus/malware software provides a benefit to the owner of the device; Apple's software does not.
As someone who cares for society I am thrilled that Apple is preventing the dissemination of CSAM.
Apple scanning is NOT optional, if they have false match or mess up you will be charged/investigated for one of THE most hated crimes in human history, even if you win the case the damage will be irreparable.
You lost your mind if you think governments are not going to setup their own CSAM database hashes with their own "manual review" centers. Apple will not be able to jack shit on what each country considers CSAM.
There's more nuance here beyond the clickbait headlines.
A scanner of any kind is a tool that user chooses among several options in App Store based on community review, is preferably open source, with parameters that user sets, and content and specific directories that user would like to scan. In many cases, people don’t want to install any scanner. The job of a virus scanner in particular is to protect the user.
Apple’s scanner is not installed by user, can scan for arbitrary information, is closed source, uses an unknown database and harms most users.
It’s more like a virus or Trojan than a virus removal program.
No idea how that will translate into Apple One family account holders' lives being torn apart. We'll see.
Then, either the DB or the algorithms will result in false positives, and you have to trust the reviewers 100% – with your life – to sort them out correctly. From the article at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28110159:
(The false-positive was a fully clothed man holding a monkey -- I think it's a rhesus macaque. No children, no nudity.) Based just on the 5 matches, I am able to theorize that 20% of the cryptographic hashes were likely incorrectly classified.
1) I don't run Windows.
2) The principle of antivirus software is different: the software scans your files but does everything locally and with the end user in full control over what happens next, and of their data. Windows Defender does not report you to the fuzz when it finds a match -- yet. Given that it is apparently now enforcing copyright laws in addition to protecting the end user against viruses, that may change.
> The case was dismissed on a technicality.
If the cops want to catch chomos and bring them to justice, they can assiduously avoid bringing the fruit of the poisoned tree into the courtroom. The societal risks of allowing them to bring ill-gotten evidence to trial are too great, no matter how evil we think the defendant is.
> It scans your photos, for known CSAM images, when you are using iCloud backups, in order to comply with the law that they must scan their hosting services for CSAM.
The USA has no such law (yet). Service providers have a duty to report if they find CSAM, not a duty to scan for it. Even if they had such a duty, they could scan the copy that lives on their servers, rather than pushing spyware to users' devices and blatantly breaking the trust that a user's device implicitly serves the user's needs.
> We seem to have taken the idea that sometimes bad things are promoted through "think of the children" to mean we must oppose anything involving the protection of children.
That's a disingenuous strawman. No one is objecting to laws that punish child abusers, or to legitimate forensic techniques to catch them. We're objecting to companies -- and now end-user devices -- being deputized to participate in law enforcement dragnets likely in violation of the U.S. Constitution, other national constitutions, and the principles of a free society (the applicable one being: LE doesn't get to search you without a damned good reason signed off by a judge on a warrant, and by extension they don't get to twist OEMs' arms to build devices to search you on their behalf).
2. Anyway, is that legal ? Even if some crazy store material on his Apple hardware isn't that illegal search non usable in law courts ?
3. Child abuse is often used as Trojan horse to introduce questionable practice. What if:
- the system is used to looking for dissidents: I look for people that have a photo of Tiananmen Square protests on their pc, for example;
- for espionage: I have the hash of some documents of interest, so all the PCs with that kind of documents could be a valuable target;
- profiling people: you have computer virus sample on your PC -> security researcher/hacker;
I think that the system is prone to all kind of privacy abuse.
4. this could be part of the previous point, but, because I think it's the final and real reason for the existence of that system, I give to this point its own section: piracy fight. I think that the one of the real reason is to discourage the exchange of illigal multimedia material to enforce copyrighs.
For the listed reasons, I think that is a bad idea. Let me know what are you thinking about.
>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...
Their system can easily be abused by governments or malicious actors to frame innocent people.
Only full control over own device can prevent abuses. Especially when device comes any close to definition of being personal. You should be able to install own software on the personal device. Including os and bios/firmware.
Not only would this be marginal it also wouldn’t necessarily be catching the real “monsters”. I don’t think if you find someone with old already known about images that it would necessarily equate to someone that actually abuses children. I think about this in a similar way (not exactly) as I do with drugs, just because a person gets busted with drugs doesn’t mean they are a drug dealer or a maker of drugs.
This is not to say that perhaps there are some more active real-time stuff in these databases that maybe with enough searching could make its way back to the perpetrator and indeed maybe even find a victim. It’s just seems that that would be far more marginal and is generally what I’m concerned about when it comes to these issues. For me it’s more important to protect children than it is to bust some weirdos for looking at the wrong porn (these can both be related as well and I do understand that I just think it’s not as cut and dry as we believe it is), further if it keeps said weirdo from actually harming a child then let them have it. We allow these databases to exist for, presumably, the same reason, with the idea that we can stop future victims from happening.
Yes, it's considered legal. Apple reviews the content first. Courts say this means it is not an illegal government search. It's a search by a private party, who then manually decides to notify the government.
No, it's not. At least not here in Germany. By law, even police officers are not allowed to look at child porn. The only institution explicitely allowed to do so is the BSI.
The rest of the population implicitely incriminates themselves when they look at (not own) child porn, including Apple's legal entity or employees.
See [1] for 184b Strafgesetzbuch
I'm trying to point out that with this action Apple bluntly decided to ignore a whole lot of countries and their federal laws, which is not something I would embrace - even when they had good intentions.
Not if. When.
Using this system to look for unlicensed content will be irresistible to them.
The one thing that occurred to me is that this is almost seems like this is a cya, Section 230 protection in disguise. There has been more discussions about Big Tech and 230, and this is one way to say "Look, we are compliant on our platform. Don't remove our protections or break us up, we are your friend!" It also shouldn't be too surprising given how Apple has behaved in China. They will only push back against the government up until the point it starts to affect profits.
When it will be when people will say no? These are all small steps only.
The image profiles are part of the OS so there's no mechanism to deliver image profiles separately for different countries. Also when the threshold number of matching images is reached, the matches are reported to a manual reviewer at Apple not a government. It only checks images on upload to iCloud photo storage.
So of course each of these limitations of the system could be changed, but you'd really need to change all of them and at that point you've created a completely different system. There's no simple change to this system that would suddenly turn it into a snitch for e.g. China or Saudi Arabia.
I've seen exactly the same objections raised every time any kind of device content search has become mainstream. Back in the 90s it was virus checking (Do you trust the AV company? What if they were bribed by the content companies?), full device indexing and search (Do you trust the OS vendor? What if they're in league with the government?). I'm very surprised this didn't blow up when Apple implemented ubiquitous image text recognition. Maybe it did. AV and device indexing mechanisms, which are ubiquitous, seem like a far more vulnerable target for such requirements.
So I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. In theory any government could pass a law requiring any company operating in it's jurisdiction to do anything, with an implementation suitable to that actual purpose. Of course this mechanism is motivated by laws in the US so it's a perfect example of exactly that, and it's a completely new system not a slippery slope subversion of an existing one. The real slippery slope here is legislative, not technical and I think that should be far, far more concerning.
I do think the legal and moral questions about this mechanism are legitimate. I think it would make more sense for Apple to scan photos in their cloud storage on the cloud storage rather than on upload. I understand there are theoretical privacy benefits to users from this implementation but the optics of having user's devices snitch on them are all wrong.
These are examples of companies choosing to do something as a selling point of their software as a benefit to the end user, and people worrying that it could aid the government down the line if they change their mind.
Apple's content review change is explicitly FOR reporting people to police in a way that can be expanded beyond it's currently set purpose (child porn) later.
>I'm very surprised this didn't blow up when Apple implemented ubiquitous image text recognition.
I'm personally not a fan of that stuff anyway, but personally if it's only my local device I don't tend to care about image recognition, it's only when it involves communicating information from MY hardware to THEIR servers that I get antsy.
I want to also point out that A/V companies never said they were going to scan for child abuse images on your computer and report you if they found any.
Like you said, the optics are terrible.
Haven't Apple already said it WILL be country specific?
>Apple’s new feature for detection of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) content in iCloud Photos will launch first in the United States, as 9to5Mac reported yesterday. Apple confirmed today, however, that any expansion outside of the United States will occur on a country-by-country basis depending on local laws and regulations.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/06/apple-says-any-expansion-of-c...
I think they'd need to be country-aware at least, otherwise the FBI or whoever will get reports for all people on earth when they presumably don't need them for anyone outside the US?
Imagine being a musician and Apple deletes your originals to stream your own music back to you in low quality.
Apple screwed up big time in the functionality and messaging around it and some people found their original files deleted when they weren’t expecting it. Big problem.
But it was hardly some plot to scan users’ hard drives for copyrighted content and delete it. On the contrary, iTunes Match would happily launder a whole library full of pirated low-quality MP3s into legal, high quality, DRM-free AAC files.
Even open source products like ClamAV rely on a opaque database of virus strings.
But actually they do have information: they know that a user has a specific number of images which are perceptually similar to known CSAM material. This information is not conclusive, but it’s also not nothing. For example, could a court order Apple to release the unencrypted iCloud backups of all users who had at least one match?
page 9 : Synthetic Match Vouchers
They generate false positives themselves to hide their knowledge of the true number of collisions.
This makes things worse not better.
Just a few days ago at DEF CON some presenter had been going around with the EICAR test string in a QR code and having fun with all the forced AV hits that can cause.
This is highly likely in my opinion.
After 8 years, the intelligence community and tech companies figured out they could sell their surveillance through a thinly veiled effort to “protect X group” (in this case it was children).
There was a slide that indicated that data from Apple and other companies was now part of the PRISM program.
I am not trying to deny or refute Snowden's whistleblowing. I think it is highly likely that PRISM exists. What I dispute are the speculations that the companies listed are complicit.
The 2012 date is quite suspicious - it is precisely the same year that a new Apple datacenter in Prineville came online. Facebook also has a datacenter. Literally next door. Facebook also appears on those slides. I am not sure who else is also now in the area.
I wonder where all of the network cables go?
I personally think that PRISM works by externally intercepting data communication lines running to these facilities. Similar to the rumors that international comms links have been tapped. The companies themselves have not participated, but the data path has been compromised.
The NSA has previously tapped lines (AT&T), but they made the mistake of doing it inside the AT&T building. Google "Room 641A at 611 Folsom Street, SF". That is where "beam splitting" was done. This eventually leaked out. The NSA isn't stupid, I doubt they wanted to repeat that sort of discovery. The best way to keep something from being discovered is to not let people know. This is why I think it is believable and likely that the companies listed on the slides have no idea what has been done.
I will also note that PRISM and "beam splitting" are a rather cosy coincidence.
I think it is most likely that PRISM is implemented without the knowledge of anyone except the NSA and in Prineville there is some "diversion" of network cabling to a private facility that is tapping the lines.
That wouldn't work without the company being at least passively complicit. Links between datacenters are encrypted. If you want even basic PCI-DSS compliance then links between racks must be encrypted (and a rack that uses unencrypted links must be physically secured). And properly implemented TLS or equivalent (which is table stakes for a company that takes this stuff at all seriously) can't be broken by the NSA directly (and if it could be then everything would be hopeless). Thus the MUSCULAR programme where the NSA put their own equipment in Google's datacenters - that's really the only way you can do it.
Remember how the legal regime in the US works with National Security Letters. Companies can be, and are, required to install these backdoors and required to keep their existence, and the existence of the letter itself, secret. Of course Google, Apple, Facebook, every other company with a significant US presence is in receipt of one of those letters and has installed backdoors - the NSA aren't stupid, what else would those laws and their funding be for?
Remember the smiley face in the slide deck?
PRISM is just the internal NSA name for it. It continues unabated.
PRISM, based on the data available, is all about consuming data WITHOUT a warrant -- vacuuming data associated with identities that are not associated with ANY identities subject to a court order. Violating laws and possibly (USA) constitutional rights in quite a few ways. PRISM likely exists.
I ask of "sneak" to confirm their assertion that "PRISM == FISA orders" is true. Please present this "evidence" and the evidence of connection. If you cannot you are, by default, distributing mis-information, bad logic or at worst tying to mislead.
(my naive searching suggests that "sneak" is definitely not in a position to make these claims)
By this move people are indoctrinated with the idea that being watched by someone big and powerful is Ok. They learn to accept such abuse and what can be worse for any safety of anyone than learning that? If one is serious about any safety one should learn to walk away from such abuse first just like with any other abuses.
It is an attempt to legalize such Spyware Engine installation. Nothing more. The story is just to sell this move using emotional response from naive people. Because high emotions is when people do poor thinking for the long term consequences. Think about Vendetta and consequences of it.
Those people should be educated what the real abuse is and they should teach their children to recognize it because abuse by Apple is already there and it is much worse then the problem they claim are trying to solve. People need to understand that it will get much worse with the time.
Imagine my surprise and horror to find that not only was the complaint accurate, it led to a completely polished thumbnail site on par with PornHub. Boom, right there, no login. No nothing. Five high, seven wide thumbnails. No two of the same child. A complete search engine based on Solr that could filter the thousands of images by age of the victim. By the number of adults participating in the rape. A threaded comment section on each image where people discussed children in their neighborhood and their fantasies of abducting them. An erotic literature section where parents wrote about how they’ve been sexually attracted to their children since changing their first diaper.
I’ll never forget a photo of two men brutally raping a girl of about 9 or 10, because it was one of the highest voted on the site. One of the comments, which I still remember when I close my eyes at night, simply said “its better when they cry”. It’s been eleven years and I’ve seen and dealt with much more of it since then, and I still weep to this day thinking about the pain inflicted on those children, the pure evil of those who enjoy it, and even the design and engineering team who bafflingly put their skills toward building that nadir of human achievement.
Tell me again what “the real abuse” is and educate me, please, because you sound pretty confident that the frighteningly common story I just told isn’t that big of a deal. I can’t believe anyone sane would compare going through your photo collection, even egregiously, to the rape and exploitation of children and think, yeah, you know, based on my value system door number one is the “much worse” injustice. Your opinion is fucking sickening and the exact type of detached inhumanity that is poisoning this industry top to bottom.
Perhaps a thorough search of your hard drives and NAS are in order citizen. No need to report to your local precinct, we've already pushed the updated scan list to your devices for analysis.
Remember, every scan just renews your innocence!
/r/apple has a large number of robots suggesting "on device scanning is more private!"
Prevent crime from happening by checking your vitals to predict the probability of committing crimes
Someone performs "an implication by malicious actors attack" on your iPhone/iPad and the injected content simply gets deleted. You take a (false positive) photo with your iPhone/iPad - and it simply disappears (making you retake). No private content is ever sent anywhere, no horrible accusation is ever made, no CSAM ever gets uploaded to iCloud. Simple.
Why doesn't Apple do that?
They went through the trouble of making this whole “private set” matching so that the client does the matching but doesn’t know the result of the matching. Only the server can (once enough matches are made that the key is available).
A criminal could load its image collection, one by one, and see which images are deleted. The result is a collection of images that are “FBI safe”.
It fits, though. They also used to be considered the masters of UI design, and the best at hardware innovation, and in manufacturing. They've mostly destroyed those reputations, as well.
It's actually good when old institutions/companies fail, because the opportunities created for others. The problem is that their failure often takes many years (i.e. look at IBM). If only we could accelerate the process across FAANG, the world would then truly be a better place (and their mission statements fulfilled).
To all apologists, Apple employees and shareholders who will hold their stock after this, I have a simple message: F*ck You. No. Seriously. Go to hell. You are created and supported the monster which will eat you at the end.
I doubt I’ll buy a new iPhone next.
China can submit hashes of political images Xi disagrees with to obtain lists of enemies.
The only way to sell this tool to the west is under the banner of protecting innocent children, this is their best shot of squaring the circle.
Pinephone is looking awfully appealing lately.
