On 8/7/2021 11:00 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

<snip>

> If you owned your phone, you could install whatever software you wanted on
> it. You could repair it yourself, or have someone else repair it. You
> could move it from one network provider to another whenever you wanted,
> because you would own it.
>
> I suggest reading the contract before you decide that you actually own your
> phone. You don't own anything other than the right to do whatever the
> provider wants you to do.

LOL, you can read the terms and conditions here:
<https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS7.pdf>.

It's operating system that you license, the hardware is yours. You can
do with as you please. You can repair it yourself or have a third party
repair it, even though Apple will make it as difficult as possible for
you to do so.

You can add applications from other sources if you are willing to
Jailbreak the device and void the warranty. Again, Apple will make it as
difficult as possible for you to do this, but you can still do it. You
can even install the Android OS on a Jailbroken iPhone
<https://iphone-tricks.com/tutorial/7468-installing-android-on-iphone-jailbreak>.

You already can move an unlocked iPhone, bought directly from Apple,
from one network provider to another whenever you want.

On 8/7/2021 10:13 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 16:42:59, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous
>> <none@example.net> wrote:
>>> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>
>> It's not your storage system.  It's Apple's.  You only rent it, just like
>> all the other services you rent from Apple.
>
> I think the poster was talking about his 'phone, not his iCloud space.
> (His previous line - which you or a previous poster has snipped - said
> something like "Apple scanning on THEIR system: OK.")
> So far, although I'm sure they're looking into it, I don't think Apple
> _let_ (put out for rental) most iPhones, they _sell_ them. (The
> confusion not helped - in UK at least, but I think elsewhere too - by
> network operators selling 'phones on long-term staged-payment
> arrangements _combined_ with service rental/subscription.)

Scott may also be confusing the operating system with the hardware. The
OS is licensed to the user to use on the Apple device that they own.

On 2021/08/07 5:55 pm, sms wrote:
>> How stupid can you be to not understand these checks are run ON YOUR
>> iPhone?
>
> I'm sure the he understands it. Not sure what he thinks what the upside
> of lying about it actually is.

OK then. He's not that stupid then. He's just a liar.
But why did he lie about it if he knew the scanning is done on your iPhone?

> For
> iCloud and iMessage scanning they can do what they want, there was never
> an expectation of privacy for anything stored on iCloud or transmitted
> via iMessage.

Apple has the keys.
That means there isn't any privacy on the iCloud or in iMessage.

But at least on your own iPhone you should be able to have privacy.
No longer is an iPhone a privacy device after iOS 15.

> Meanwhile there could be an upside, at least in the short-term, for
> iPhone 12 sales with iOS 14.

Snowden calls the iPhone the "iNarc" as of now.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy

Is it possible for iPhone owners to put off installing iOS15 forever?
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out.""

On 2021/08/07 12:0 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
>> How stupid can you be to not understand these checks are run ON YOUR iPhone?
>
> nospam knows exactly what happens. But he is programmed to always spin
> Apple positively and insu;t those who don't agree with him.

OK then. He was not stupid. He was just a liar. But why lie?
What did he gain by lying about something so easily shown to be a lie?
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

In article <semj1u$efd$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's operating system that you license, the hardware is yours. You can
> do with as you please. You can repair it yourself or have a third party
> repair it, even though Apple will make it as difficult as possible for
> you to do so.

that contradicts some of what's in your heavily refuted 'list'.

> You can add applications from other sources if you are willing to
> Jailbreak the device and void the warranty.

there is *no* need to jailbreak to add apps from other sources.

developers, for example, do that many times a day. enterprise customers
rely on it. others can do so if they want.

> Again, Apple will make it as
> difficult as possible for you to do this, but you can still do it.

actually, apple makes it very easy, more so than it used to be

> You
> can even install the Android OS on a Jailbroken iPhone

absolutely wrong.

> <https://iphone-tricks.com/tutorial/7468-installing-android-on-iphone-jailbrea
> k>.

the purveyor of disinformation knows no bounds.

you're intentionally lying or you're just stupid, quite likely both.

that link mentions bootlace, a relic from the distant past which
supports the original iphone, iphone 3g and original ipod touch, all
from nearly 15 years ago.

github source, with last commit from 11 years ago:
<https://github.com/iDroid-Project/Bootlace>

it references the idroidproject website, which no longer exists because
it hasn't worked in a decade, however, it's still in the wayback
machine.

but this gets even better.

even if someone did obtain the old hardware, they can install android
2.2, which google just eol'ed.

<https://web.archive.org/web/20120128040228im_/http://www.idroidproject.
org/w/images/Photo_%281%29.jpg>

<https://support.google.com/android/thread/118703101/sign-in-on-android-
devices-running-android-2-3-7-or-lower-will-not-be-allowed-starting-sept
ember-27?hl=en>
As part of our ongoing efforts to keep our users safe, Google will
no longer allow sign-in on Android devices that run Android 2.3.7 or
lower starting September 27, 2021. If you sign into your device after
September 27, you may get username or password errors when you try
to use Google products and services like Gmail, YouTube, and Maps. 

> You already can move an unlocked iPhone, bought directly from Apple,
> from one network provider to another whenever you want.

there is *no* need to buy anything directly from apple.

that also contradicts even more items in your heavily refuted 'list'.

In article <semhea$3b1$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I'm sure the he understands it. Not sure what he thinks what the upside
> of lying about it actually is.

ask yourself that, because you continually lie about this and much more.

> It's likely that Apple will back down on the client-side scanning given
> the reaction from privacy organizations like the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, they just need to find a face-saving way of doing so.

not likely at all.

> For
> iCloud and iMessage scanning they can do what they want, there was never
> an expectation of privacy for anything stored on iCloud or transmitted
> via iMessage.

it's *only* for photos uploaded to icloud. full stop.

imessage uses an entirely different mechanism, which is opt-in and
alerts only the parents.

In article <fTzPI.8232$yS5.5932@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> nospam knows exactly what happens.

because i read apple's white paper on it.

you obviously have not, nor have the other trolls.

> But he is programmed to always spin
> Apple positively and insu;t those who don't agree with him.

nope. i correct lies and disinformation. the only time i insult is if
someone else insults first.

On 8/7/2021 12:29 PM, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/07 5:55 pm, sms wrote:
>>> How stupid can you be to not understand these checks are run ON YOUR
>>> iPhone?
>>
>> I'm sure the he understands it. Not sure what he thinks what the
>> upside of lying about it actually is.
>
> OK then. He's not that stupid then. He's just a liar.
> But why did he lie about it if he knew the scanning is done on your iPhone?

No one knows why he continuously lies.

> Apple has the keys.
> That means there isn't any privacy on the iCloud or in iMessage.

Correct. If you want secure messaging then use Signal. If you want
secure cloud storage then encrypt whatever you upload to the cloud
regardless of the provider.

> But at least on your own iPhone you should be able to have privacy.
> No longer is an iPhone a privacy device after iOS 15.

Well yes, that's why organizations like the Electronic Frontier
Foundation are so concerned. It's different than Google skimming your
e-mail for keywords in order to serve up specific advertising.

> Snowden calls the iPhone the "iNarc" as of now.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/07/week-in-patriarchy-apple-privacy
>
>
> Is it possible for iPhone owners to put off installing iOS15 forever?

I don't think that there's been any requirement to upgrade your iOS. The
problem is that you won't get security updates unless you do so.

In any case, it's likely that Apple will back down from device scanning,
there's just been too much push-back from privacy advocates, LGBTQ+
organizations, and religious freedom groups.

In article <semqgj$1e7$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> I don't think that there's been any requirement to upgrade your iOS. The
> problem is that you won't get security updates unless you do so.

false.

apple updates older versions with security patches, most recently, an
update for ios 12 this past june, which supports iphones as far back as
eight years ago.

maybe one day you'll get something correct.

On 2021-08-07, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 16:42:59, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>
>>It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just
>>like all the other services you rent from Apple.
>
> I think the poster was talking about his 'phone, not his iCloud space.

Then he's a dumbass. Only photos that are transferred to Apple servers
are examined.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-08-07, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 9:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>>> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>
>> It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just like
>> all the other services you rent from Apple.
>
> It's not the scanning of images on iCloud that is the concern of users
> and privacy organizations like Electronic Frontier Foundation, it's
> scanning on the device

Only photos being *transferred* to Apple servers are scanned.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

"John Robertson" <spam@flippers.com> wrote

| OK then. He's not that stupid then. He's just a liar.
| But why did he lie about it if he knew the scanning is done on your
iPhone?
|

Nospam is a notorious know-it-all and Apple fanatic.
He's very talented, though, at sounding like he knows
what he's talking about. Generally he achieves that through
vague statements and insulting other people.

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 21:02:45, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On 2021-08-07, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 16:42:59, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>>In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous
>>><none@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>>
>>>It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just
>>>like all the other services you rent from Apple.
>>
>> I think the poster was talking about his 'phone, not his iCloud space.
>
>Then he's a dumbass. Only photos that are transferred to Apple servers
>are examined.
>
Not, allegedly, from IOS 15.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Grief generates a huge energy in you and it's better for everybody if you
harness it to do something. - Judi Dench, RT 2015/2/28-3/6

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 13:30:12, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>In any case, it's likely that Apple will back down from device
>scanning, there's just been too much push-back from privacy advocates,
>LGBTQ+ organizations, and religious freedom groups.

Do you think such push-back will have any _real_ effect? Apple (and any
other company), whatever they say publicly, are only interested in the
bottom line. Lots of people _say_ they'll not buy Apple any more if
Apple do this (or _say_ they'll vote
Republican/Democrat/Labour/Liberal/Conservative), but I suspect Apple
have a fairly good grasp of how many will actually _do_ (or not do)
that. Which is probably not a large number. Especially among (mostly)
the young who seem less concerned about privacy than we old codgers.

(There's also the matter of government - or similar - obliging them to
do this anyway. Depending on your level of paranoia, you may believe
this is happening already; to quote a line from a British political
series, "You may believe that - I couldn't possibly comment.")
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Grief generates a huge energy in you and it's better for everybody if you
harness it to do something. - Judi Dench, RT 2015/2/28-3/6

In article <kMgJYSApW9DhFwz3@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> Do you think such push-back will have any _real_ effect?

nope, especially when they realize that other companies are doing the
same thing and have been for years.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA>
PhotoDNA is an image-identification technology used for detecting
child pornography and other illegal content which is reported to the
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) as required
by law. It was developed by Microsoft Research and Hany Farid,
professor at Dartmouth College, beginning in 2009.
....
It is used on Microsoft's own services including Bing and
OneDrive, as well as by Google's Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, Adobe
Systems, Reddit, Discord and the NCMEC, to whom Microsoft donated
the technology.

On 07/08/2021 22.30, sms wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 12:29 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>> On 2021/08/07 5:55 pm, sms wrote:

....

>> Apple has the keys.
>> That means there isn't any privacy on the iCloud or in iMessage.
>
> Correct. If you want secure messaging then use Signal. If you want
> secure cloud storage then encrypt whatever you upload to the cloud
> regardless of the provider.
>
>> But at least on your own iPhone you should be able to have privacy.
>> No longer is an iPhone a privacy device after iOS 15.
>
> Well yes, that's why organizations like the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation are so concerned. It's different than Google skimming your
> e-mail for keywords in order to serve up specific advertising.

You forget that Gmail also scans your email to detect receipts and group
them together; they also scan for appointments and adds them to your
calendar. Things that some people consider nice features and other
people consider unbearable intrusion. I think it can be disabled.

....

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 13:30:12, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>(my responses usually follow points raised):
>[]
>>In any case, it's likely that Apple will back down from device
>>scanning, there's just been too much push-back from privacy advocates,
>>LGBTQ+ organizations, and religious freedom groups.
>
>Do you think such push-back will have any _real_ effect? Apple (and any
>other company), whatever they say publicly, are only interested in the
>bottom line. Lots of people _say_ they'll not buy Apple any more if
>Apple do this (or _say_ they'll vote
>Republican/Democrat/Labour/Liberal/Conservative), but I suspect Apple
>have a fairly good grasp of how many will actually _do_ (or not do)
>that. Which is probably not a large number. Especially among (mostly)
>the young who seem less concerned about privacy than we old codgers.

I don't think the pushback will have any effect, but the lawsuits from
false positives may well have some. At least in the US. The Europeans
seem to take privacy concerns more seriously, and they use Apple products
too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2021-08-08, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 21:02:45, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>On 2021-08-07, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 16:42:59, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote
>>> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>>>In article <sehvjg$dql$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous
>>>><none@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>>>>
>>>>It's not your storage system. It's Apple's. You only rent it, just
>>>>like all the other services you rent from Apple.
>>>
>>> I think the poster was talking about his 'phone, not his iCloud space.
>>
>>Then he's a dumbass. Only photos that are transferred to Apple servers
>>are examined.
>>
> Not, allegedly, from IOS 15.

Whatever that means.

Nothing in that jumble of a sentence disputes or invalidates what I said
above. Only photos that are transferred to Apple servers are examined.
Period.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-08-08, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/08/2021 22.30, sms wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 12:29 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>>> On 2021/08/07 5:55 pm, sms wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Apple has the keys.
>>> That means there isn't any privacy on the iCloud or in iMessage.
>>
>> Correct. If you want secure messaging then use Signal. If you want
>> secure cloud storage then encrypt whatever you upload to the cloud
>> regardless of the provider.
>>
>>> But at least on your own iPhone you should be able to have privacy.
>>> No longer is an iPhone a privacy device after iOS 15.

Bullshit, since you can easily opt out by refraining from transferring
photos to Apple's servers.

>> Well yes, that's why organizations like the Electronic Frontier
>> Foundation are so concerned. It's different than Google skimming your
>> e-mail for keywords in order to serve up specific advertising.
>
> You forget that Gmail also scans your email to detect receipts and group
> them together; they also scan for appointments and adds them to your
> calendar. Things that some people consider nice features and other
> people consider unbearable intrusion. I think it can be disabled.

Neither of you have been paying much attention, it seems.

Google scans everyone's email for child porn, and it just got a man arrested
<https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/5/5970141/how-google-scans-your-gmail-for-child-porn>
---
Google makes use of Microsoft's PhotoDNA technology to scan emails, and
calculate a mathematical hash for an image of child sexual abuse that
allows it to recognize photos automatically even if they have been
altered. The tech is now also used by both Twitter and Facebook, after
Microsoft donated it to the NCMEC in 2009. Videos, too, have become the
focus of such digital fingerprinting programs. Google has its own Video
ID software for detecting footage of child sexual abuse, and British
company Friend MTS donated its Expose F1 detection program to the
International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) earlier
this year.
---

But yeah, "Apple: BAD!!!" : D

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-08-08 10:10 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 13:30:12, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> []
>>> In any case, it's likely that Apple will back down from device
>>> scanning, there's just been too much push-back from privacy advocates,
>>> LGBTQ+ organizations, and religious freedom groups.
>>
>> Do you think such push-back will have any _real_ effect? Apple (and any
>> other company), whatever they say publicly, are only interested in the
>> bottom line. Lots of people _say_ they'll not buy Apple any more if
>> Apple do this (or _say_ they'll vote
>> Republican/Democrat/Labour/Liberal/Conservative), but I suspect Apple
>> have a fairly good grasp of how many will actually _do_ (or not do)
>> that. Which is probably not a large number. Especially among (mostly)
>> the young who seem less concerned about privacy than we old codgers.
>
> I don't think the pushback will have any effect, but the lawsuits from
> false positives may well have some. At least in the US. The Europeans
> seem to take privacy concerns more seriously, and they use Apple products
> too.

If you'd read up on the system Apple is planning to use, you'd learn
that false positives really aren't a problem...

<https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_for_Children_Technology_Summary.pdf>

....and that's the opinion of people far more knowledgeable than you or I
on the subject:

'Apple has found a way to detect and report CSAM offenders while
respecting these privacy constraints. When the number of user photos
that are in the CSAM database exceeds the threshold, the system is able
to detect and report this. Yet a user photo that is not in the CSAM
database remains invisible to the system, and users do not learn the
contents of the CSAM database.'

<https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Technical_Assessment_of_CSAM_Detection_Mihir_Bellare.pdf>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihir_Bellare>

'Apple’s approach preserves privacy better than any other I am aware of:
Apple receives an encrypted record from the device for every picture.
But cryptographic results guarantee that Apple will be able to see
visual derivatives only if the device uploads enough known CSAM
pictures, and only for the matching pictures. If there are not enough
known CSAM pictures uploaded, Apple will be unable to see anything.'

<https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Technical_Assessment_of_CSAM_Detection_David_Forsyth.pdf>

'In conclusion, I believe that the Apple PSI system provides an
excellent balance between privacy and utility, and will be extremely
helpful in identifying CSAM content while maintaining a high level of
user privacy and keeping false positives to a minimum.'

<https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Technical_Assessment_of_CSAM_Detection_Benny_Pinkas.pdf>

On 8/8/2021 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

<snip>

> You forget that Gmail also scans your email to detect receipts and group
> them together; they also scan for appointments and adds them to your
> calendar. Things that some people consider nice features and other
> people consider unbearable intrusion. I think it can be disabled.

Yeah, it can get a little creepy when your phone advises you of
appointments, hotel stays, flights, etc., that are a result of Google
scanning your e-mail. It's not an "unbearable intrusion," and it's
occasionally helpful, but it still is a little creepy.

But what Apple is planning, scanning content stored locally on your
device, is more than a little creepy.

On 08/08/2021 19.24, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2021-08-08, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2021 22.30, sms wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2021 12:29 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>>>> On 2021/08/07 5:55 pm, sms wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Apple has the keys.
>>>> That means there isn't any privacy on the iCloud or in iMessage.
>>>
>>> Correct. If you want secure messaging then use Signal. If you want
>>> secure cloud storage then encrypt whatever you upload to the cloud
>>> regardless of the provider.
>>>
>>>> But at least on your own iPhone you should be able to have privacy.
>>>> No longer is an iPhone a privacy device after iOS 15.
>
> Bullshit, since you can easily opt out by refraining from transferring
> photos to Apple's servers.
>
>>> Well yes, that's why organizations like the Electronic Frontier
>>> Foundation are so concerned. It's different than Google skimming your
>>> e-mail for keywords in order to serve up specific advertising.
>>
>> You forget that Gmail also scans your email to detect receipts and group
>> them together; they also scan for appointments and adds them to your
>> calendar. Things that some people consider nice features and other
>> people consider unbearable intrusion. I think it can be disabled.
>
> Neither of you have been paying much attention, it seems.

Well, thanks for telling.

>
> Google scans everyone's email for child porn, and it just got a man arrested
> <https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/5/5970141/how-google-scans-your-gmail-for-child-porn>
> ---
> Google makes use of Microsoft's PhotoDNA technology to scan emails, and
> calculate a mathematical hash for an image of child sexual abuse that
> allows it to recognize photos automatically even if they have been
> altered. The tech is now also used by both Twitter and Facebook, after
> Microsoft donated it to the NCMEC in 2009. Videos, too, have become the
> focus of such digital fingerprinting programs. Google has its own Video
> ID software for detecting footage of child sexual abuse, and British
> company Friend MTS donated its Expose F1 detection program to the
> International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) earlier
> this year.
> ---
>
> But yeah, "Apple: BAD!!!" : D

Hey, I have not said a single word against Apple in this thread. Nor
actually against Google. I only commented a detail, that google does
more than scan email to post related adverts.

Please pay attention to who says what.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2021-08-08 11:05 a.m., sms wrote:
> On 8/8/2021 10:01 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You forget that Gmail also scans your email to detect receipts and group
>> them together; they also scan for appointments and adds them to your
>> calendar. Things that some people consider nice features and other
>> people consider unbearable intrusion. I think it can be disabled.
>
> Yeah, it can get a little creepy when your phone advises you of
> appointments, hotel stays, flights, etc., that are a result of Google
> scanning your e-mail. It's not an "unbearable intrusion," and it's
> occasionally helpful, but it still is a little creepy.
>
> But what Apple is planning, scanning content stored locally on your
> device, is more than a little creepy.

Comparing a hash of images on your device to hashes of known images of
child pornography if and only if you use iCloud Photos.

Doing so in a manner that preserves user privacy; where no human even
looks at any photo of the user unless a threshold of a certain number of
positive hits for CSAM is met:

'Apple’s method of detecting known CSAM is designed with user privacy in
mind. Instead of scanning images in the cloud, the system performs
on-device matching using a database of known CSAM image hashes provided
by NCMEC and other child safety organizations. Apple further transforms
this database into an unreadable set of hashes that is securely stored
on users’ devices.

....

Before an image is stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching
process is performed for that image against the unreadable set of known
CSAM hashes. This matching process is powered by a cryptographic
technology called private set intersection, which determines if there is
a match without revealing the result. Private set intersection (PSI)
allows Apple to learn if an image hash matches the known CSAM image
hashes, without learning anything about image hashes that do not match.
PSI also prevents the user from learning whether there was a match.

The device then creates a cryptographic safety voucher that encodes the
match result. It also encrypts the image’s NeuralHash and a visual
derivative. This voucher is uploaded to iCloud Photos along with the
image. Using another technology called threshold secret sharing, the
system ensures the contents of the safety vouchers cannot be interpreted
by Apple unless the iCloud Photos account crosses a threshold of known
CSAM content.

Threshold secret sharing is a cryptographic technique that enables a
secret to be split into distinct shares so the secret can then only be
reconstructed if the number of available shares exceeds a predefined
threshold. For example, if a secret is split into one thousand shares,
and the threshold is ten, then the secret can be reconstructed from any
ten of the one thousand shares. However, if only nine shares are
available, then nothing is revealed about the secret.

Only when the threshold is exceeded does the cryptographic technology
allow Apple to interpret the contents of the safety vouchers associated
with the matching CSAM images.'

<https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_for_Children_Technology_Summary.pdf>

In short, Apple is smarter than you are.

On 8/8/2021 10:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

<snip>

> I don't think the pushback will have any effect, but the lawsuits from
> false positives may well have some. At least in the US. The Europeans
> seem to take privacy concerns more seriously, and they use Apple products
> too.

The other issue that may have an effect in the U.S. is HIPAA.

Health care professionals often use corporate-issued or personal iPhones
to take clinical photos of patients, whether it's for wounds or other
purposes. See <https://www.accountablehq.com/post/hipaa-and-photography>.

While there are secure cloud storage options for clinical photography,
on-device scanning could end up flagging photos.

If Apple is looking for a way to gracefully back out of this insanity
then HIPAA could be a good excuse to do so while saving face.

iPhones have been especially popular for health care systems because of
the belief that they are both more secure and provide better privacy
protection than Android devices.

On 2021-08-08 11:16 a.m., sms wrote:
> On 8/8/2021 10:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't think the pushback will have any effect, but the lawsuits from
>> false positives may well have some.  At least in the US.  The Europeans
>> seem to take privacy concerns more seriously, and they use Apple products
>> too.
>
> The other issue that may have an effect in the U.S. is HIPAA.
>
> Health care professionals often use corporate-issued or personal iPhones
> to take clinical photos of patients, whether it's for wounds or other
> purposes. See <https://www.accountablehq.com/post/hipaa-and-photography>.
>
> While there are secure cloud storage options for clinical photography,
> on-device scanning could end up flagging photos.
>
> If Apple is looking for a way to gracefully back out of this insanity
> then HIPAA could be a good excuse to do so while saving face.
>
> iPhones have been especially popular for health care systems because of
> the belief that they are both more secure and provide better privacy
> protection than Android devices.

Nope.

Such photos (clinical photography) wouldn't match the hashes of known CSAM