You misunderstand. The objection is not to the methods in which the task is accomplished. The objection is to the principle of the technology. The objection would exist under the best of forms. There is no misunderstanding of the operations you mention; you rebut but a strawman. In fact, the fear was never about "Tim Apple looking at every photo" and has little to do with Apple itself.
It is about how such a technology can enable abuse. It does not matter if the technology is exclusively used for good if the harm it does if abused is too great. And we have plenty of evidence to see that irrespective of which country you reside in, that the scope of such projects typically widens. We also live in a global world and we are not exclusively subjected to the laws of our own governments. We don't have to go far back in history to see examples of the government turning on its own citizens. It is not just the US, it is not just German, not just Russia, not just China, but such actions have been prolific. I do not believe the is sufficient reason to believe your own government is incapable of abusing such power and I'd accuse you of lunacy if you claim that no government would seek to abuse it. Was not the US founded on the explicit principle of treating the government as an adversarial entity? Because if not, well then one of us must be illiterate, since Federalist 10 and 51 famously write this explicitly. Not to mention a litany of quotes by Jefferson.
experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny
So no, it is not a misunderstanding on my part as to the specs of the technology. Because the matter is about how much harm could be caused when such perversion happens. It is the understanding that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That evil is not solely created by evil men seeking to do evil, but the unfortunate reality is that it is often created when good men are seeking to do good. Even under the best forms.