Apple Will Scan Public iCloud Links for Harmful Content Starting in iOS 27.3 | Hacker News Reader

Apple Will Scan Public iCloud Links for Harmful Content Starting in iOS 27.3

support.apple.com

40 points7777777phil17 comments

Coming from a security-focused IT background, I’ve long held the belief that people who create and trade in such harmful material utilize complex privacy-focused systems. So it’s a constant shock when I read stories about people sharing such material so openly, using iCloud, text messages, Facebook and many other public spaces.

I wonder what prompted this from Apple and how big an issue they have on their hands.

> I wonder what prompted this from Apple

My guess: people using public iCloud photo album links to share problematic images/videos on other online platforms. Whatsapp (for example) can review images posted on their chat groups, but it's much more difficult for them to review images which are hosted elsewhere.

Who knows what triggered it, I know in the past they said something about scanning full photo libraries for "harmful" content. I also understand that Apple always wants to be REAL careful about what their brand might be attached to; they would really quickly be marked complicit if there is something "harmful" on an icloud link

Translation: Apple is covering its ass for content generated/shared on its computers (do you seriously think you own your own Apple computer, when Apple controls so much of it?[0]) and its infrastructure.

Period.

[0] I tried deleting Apple Maps on a mac as root. It can't be done. I don't own this box. Apple does.

Of course you don't if you don't even deactivate SIP, that's arguably pretty well understood about macOS these days. Unlike on iOS devices, it can be deactivated, though, and you can even install a completely different OS.

I feel like thats one of those "knowns" with apple lmao

We will give you super powerful box, with pretty decent OS, but you do not have full control of box. Apple is quite an interesting company when you think about it from that high level

You can install another OS on the box, so you pretty much do have full control over it, if you really want.

For now that’s true for older machines, even though other OSes can’t really make full use of the hardware (yet).

I wouldn’t put it past the Ternus-run company to issue a firmware update that breaks third-party boot loaders for existing hardware, and simultaneously hinder third-party development on upcoming hardware.

Apple is not locking down its newer Macs to prevent the use of alternative OSs. Someone has to implement the hardware support, which takes time.

They've gone out of their way to make Linux support possible, and they're actively fixing bugs which were getting in the way of that. The macOS 27.3 beta includes a fix for issues which were getting in the way of M5 support.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-note... (under "mBoot")

true, i own a few Apple's devices

> When you share an item that can be accessed by Anyone with the Link, to facilitate that sharing, the item is no longer end-to-end encrypted

I could be quite ignorant here but considering the start of this a while ago was the fear that Apple would scan your entire photo library without consent, I feel like this is fair trade. It makes sense that the quite literal public link, open to anyone, is also accessible to Apple. Also makes sense that with this public link directly connected to Apple, they want to ensure that they arent complicit in anything illegal or harmful. I would be curious what their actual definition of "harmful" is though.

I also appreciate that they explicitly mark out the difference between sharing with "People you choose" and "Anyone with link". I'd love to hear other people's thoughts, I know the opinions on Apple are very diverse lmao

A couple of fallacies here.

> considering the start of this a while ago was the fear that Apple would scan your entire photo library without consent, I feel like this is fair trade.

The first is that since they were going to implement a much more intrusive approach but halted due to incredible backlash from users and the tech community it’s OK that they now implement a much less intrusive approach.

> It makes sense that the quite literal public link, open to anyone, is also accessible to Apple.

The second is that a publicly accessible link is very much not the same as “open to anyone”, the link itself is the knowledge gate required to access the data.

Let’s say I use iCloud and need to share my tax documents with my accountant who doesn’t use iPhone/Mac. I turn on public link sharing temporarily with the knowledge that only people who have the link could access it, thereby still being secure so long as neither party is careless in their distribution of the link.

My expectation as a user is that only those with the exact link can view my tax documents. But as it stands, Apple is now using their privileged position as iCloud administrator to unencrypt my file and scan it simply because the link is stored in their database.

Publicly accessible != publicly distributed

The alternative is to only share a link with individuals you grant access to.

> When you share content that’s stored in iCloud, such as a photo in iCloud Photos or a file in iCloud Drive, you can choose to Share a Link or Send a Copy of the item. If you choose Share a Link, you can either share the item with “People you choose” — only people you invite or approve — or with “Anyone with the link," which makes it accessible to anyone who has the link, including Apple.

> My expectation as a user is that only those with the exact link can view my tax documents

Security through obscurity has never worked. Access control lists do.

> Let’s say I use iCloud and need to share my tax documents with my accountant who doesn’t use iPhone/Mac.

iCloud photo albums can be shared to an email address - the recipient does not need to have an account with Apple. I don't know offhand what the user experience is on the receiving end, but there's a clearly signposted way of doing this, and it doesn't require the album to be set as public.

The fact that Apple doesn't see the link alone as the "knowledge gate" or "access restriction" says it all.

It’s pretty stupid to say that you publicly share a document, accessible to anyone, but that you hope that a single person will be able to access it.

If you sent that link through WhatsApp, they access it to generate a preview (and who knows what else?). Same for any number of other services.

iCloud, like all other file distribution services, make absolutely no distinction between publicly accessible and publicly distributed. Not should they. They are distributing it… publicly.

… because you made the file public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com