[1] https://mashable.com/article/mark-zuckerberg-instagram-whats...
That's what I find so disappointing about Apple. They were the one large tech player that had begun to build their brand on taking privacy seriously.
"Brand" is right, because it always was, and always will be marketing and nothing more (unless maybe laws are changed and/or regulators get off their lazy asses).
I think you may find that folks don't take as dim a view on preventing exploitation of children as HN crowd. Apple has arguably the #3 to #1 brand globally currently.
Let's give this some time to shake out and see how the android brands and others do (if they become the home of child exploitation and porn) brand wise.
Don't do that. It's bull and you know it.
While I'm personally uncomfortable with the privacy ramifications of what Apple is doing, Apple's decision is sensible in the grand scheme.
That means you need to scan everyones photos and read everyones messages, because someone might be saying something bad somewhere?
They'll move elsewhere, and millions of people will lose their privacy forever, and some will get killed, because they'll save a wrong kind of meme, and the local dictator will mark that hash as "bad".
1. Anything-goes. Accept that customers will use it for evil and for good, and justify allowing the former by the latter.
2. Lie to customers. Eg: include a backdoor for law-enforcement.
3. On-device detection of illegal or dangerous content (as Apple is apparently doing)
Regardless of whether approach #1 has merit, I don't see any large company staying with it long term because it's a PR nightmare. No big company wants to have an endless stream of stomach-turning stories in the news. It's easy to predict headlines like "Breaking! World's Largest Human Trafficking Ring Conducts Slave Auctions on Apple Messages. Tim Cook Silent!"
Do folks really think AWS keys in china are not under control of govt?
Do folks really think MMS and other messaging in things like tiktok between chinese users is not accessible by govt?
Zoom?
Normal phone calls?
Folks understand that apple data centers will be run by state-owned Guizhou-Cloud Big Data Industry (GCBD). That Apple has had to agree to keep the encryption keys locally to those data centers under control of GCBD employees? Why would apple have to change how it does encryption for chinese users and make sure keys are locally available.
This is just another case of governments wanting to snoop on their people, and companies letting them,.... and for good PR they just pack it around child abuse and terrorism.
What content does your comment add? Nothing.
I am pointing out that there already are efforts around total encrypted privacy. Tor network is doing it. So are others. As they are taken over by bad actors - the rest of the world starts cutting them off and blocking them.
When folks talk about this hurting apples brand - you could not be more wrong. Seriously, address the points I'm making.
Apple is currently providing relatively strong E2E encryption (a leader actually in that). They are now going to match that with screening on probably the #1 issue that is out there around encrypted networks, the issue that often forces folks to backdoor things.
They also are going to be offering what seem like thoughtful features for users. Parents in particular with kids accounts have concerns (reasonable) about tech - and they will help to address that.
For all the "brand damage" HN goes on about here, in the larger world this may be popular and or very accepted.
And yes, if android becomes known as the home of the pedo's - that's not going to be an apple brand problem, but an android one. Surprisingly often we've seen others COPY apple, usually after loudly pointing out that they won't.
Did you make an actual argument? What's pathetic is accusing anyone who disagrees with you of supporting child exploitation. None of the people I care about who were victims of some kind of abuse would have been helped by having spyware on phones. I don't make a habit of swearing on HN, nor of engaging with people who argue and accuse in bad faith, so I'll leave it at that.
I consider whatever they say lip service until proven otherwise. How anyone can call their app privacy oriented without at least showing the code is insane. Use Signal, etc., etc.
I don't think this is true, at least not most of the time. We had a summer of "defund the police" protests and BLM signs seem to be everywhere, yet police budgets in most cities have only increased[1].
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-city-budget-police-f...
Yeah, WhatsApp might decide to spy on you in the future, so you might as well use iMessage which already spies on you?
They also did not mention iMessage. There are several other popular messaging applications out there to choose from.
If you get flagged by the iCloud scanning, you could be reported to the authorities. But you can opt out of iCloud scanning by not using iCloud.
If you get flagged by the iMessage system, you are not reported to the authorities. The parents of that person may receive a notification. But if you are sending photos to a kid on a device set up by their parents, you should pretty well expect that photos you send may be seen by their parents.
I understand the privacy concerns raised by Apple's about-face here. But we should be clear about what is and isn't happening.
WhatsApp comes off looking like a defender of privacy by saying "we won't do what Apple has done" but in reality the most objectionable thing Apple is doing relates to cloud-based photo storage, not messaging. The messaging piece is a new type of parental controls and does not involve the authorities in any event.
You can opt out of any privacy concerns by not using the concerning product. That's a complete non sequitur in a conversation about the concern.
China accounts for 20% of revenue for Apple, how likely are they to bow down to China's demands? How about other regulators?
The fact that this is now put into place sets a very harrowing precedent.
The situation is anything but clear.
How do you know? Apple makes a lot of claims about their security but these claims probably don't preclude Apple spying on you somehow. Especially if a warrant compels them.
Zuckerberg is the master of pivoting any size of company. This will be a turningpoint, yet again, of Facebook.
I'm sure he's an intelligent executive but can we stop congratulating people solely for being at the top of the org chart? What has Zuckerberg, personally and without aid or advice, done to prove himself a "master of pivoting".