upvote
> It would be a pity if I had to have a separate analog camera just for baby photos because then I'd need to learn the whole developing film stuff.

Polaroid coming back in business! I would not complain at all if we started reverting some of our lifestyle behaviors back to analog.

reply
Haha, we do have those Instax Mini cameras. They make for a nice dose of nostalgia. We have a big frame full of photos of our friends and family on the wall and it's nice to walk by.
reply
Same. We have albums full of those instax photos
reply
Apple's proposal was only for photos being uploaded to iCloud and not local ones.

IIRC weren't there some thoughts that they'd switch iCloud to E2E but add local scanning on upload (compare to what it currently when Apple, Google, etc. freely scan all your cloud photos anyway). That didn't seem like a terrible deal on paper.

reply
What does "scanning" mean though?

Does this mean every parent has to now make sure not to take pictures of their children playing in bath for instance, in order not to trip these scans for false positives?

reply
>in order not to trip these scans for false positives

They CLAIM they scan for CSAM, so watch out your documents and pictures with something that govt also wants to track.

reply
E2EE on iCloud with advanced data protectiob still keeps metadata not encrypted likely exactly for this purpose.
reply
No. iCloud Photos and Files are and have always been non-e2ee and they already scan everything in it.

Even with e2ee enabled for iCloud Photos/files (which NOBODY uses, and furthermore is entirely disabled in the UK), it sends identifying hashes of plaintext file content to the server without e2ee.

reply
> The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner?

This is exactly what has been proposed. E.g. WhatsApp has a piece of code that scans images and texts before sending. After that, they are "encrypted".

reply
This is of course a massive privacy violation, since the code that scans for CSAM can be switched out to scan for anything else at any time. (It's even easier to do now than when Apple first proposed it, as language models since have gotten good at reading images.)
reply
Apple was already doing image recognition on device for photo searchability when they proposed that solution.
reply
But that did not really carry data out from the device, other than hashes. I think Apply knew this was coming, and tried to do it better.
reply
I am not fully acquainted with the details, but I would not discard (3) make e2ee illegal, at least for platforms of certain size etc. That is what the proponents ultimately want anyway. If they settle for anything else, it's because of the resistance.
reply
This is their actual objective.
reply
Platforms will stop offering E2EE . Didn't Instagram abandon E2EE ?
reply
That is a much more simple prediction. I do use Telegram with our family claw-like and it does not do E2EE by default. You need to do a secret chat or whatever. I think you're probably right. We'll just lose E2EE.
reply
E2EE has UX issues that are difficult to paper over aside from just legislation issues.
reply
You are correct in that both option 1 and 2 are possible. For end-to-end encrypted messages only option 2 is possible. The content will be scanned directly on your own device and the data will be sent to the authorities without your knowledge, if the software detects something suspicious. This is called client-side-scanning.
reply
The proposed Apple system was at least more restrained in that it was looking to identify known abuse images. Which is better than the Google one which aims to identify new unseen content which constantly flags parents acting legally sharing photos to medical professionals.
reply
There are in betweens of an iphone and analog camera. You can use a digital camera with an SD card that you plug into a laptop that never connects to internet.
reply
So the average person is having to set up an air gapped system to store normal family photos while while Epstein's clients and co conspirators communicate over plain text Gmail and for some reason we can't do anything about it.
reply
You aren't that rich, so you are correct.
reply
[flagged]
reply
[dead]
reply