j_francis_imagery wrote:
And messages, too, I guess.

https://boingboing.net/2021/08/05/apple … ldren.html

Starts off being used for one narrow, important reason. Some might say they are already going too far.  And where will this expand to?

It is impossible to fault the "intent". Anything to put an end to child exploitation is a good thing., and sorely needed.

But, as the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

There will inevitably be abuses of the function that allows the searches. If there are "backdoors" to your data- who can guarantee it is "your " data, and not something planted to incriminate... What else will they search for? What kind of oversight will be possible? Will people just automatically begin encrypting everything, even their potato salad recipes shared with good old Aunt Bessie?

Kinda defines "slippery slope".

Managing Light wrote:
Actually, they're limited to checking only those images stored on their version of "the cloud."
Don't store your images there and you're home free.

The article indicated it will scan people's iPhones, not just the cloud.   I'm not sure if that's accurate, but it's what the article indicates.  (I've personally refrained from using the cloud for several reasons).   

What I wonder is how their scanning algorithm will know the difference between a 17 year old child and 18 year old adult.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Nobody is forcing you to use Apple products . . . it's your choice.

Apple is an independent, private company. If they wish to protect themselves from litigation (being an accessory to child abuse crimes) that is their legal prerogative.

For mobile, there is a de facto duopoly. So if one wants a smart phone, it's apple, with its upcoming hashed review of (sort of) encrypted photos, or Google, with its lack of pretense of protecting your data from outside snooping. Mutt, or Jeff?

It's a little like telling people in Alabama that nobody is forcing them to use Spectrum as an ISP. But the state prevents cities from establishing independent internet, so there is often just one, crummy, expensive, ISP.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Use Linux

Well said.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Nobody is forcing you to use Apple products . . . it's your choice.

Apple is an independent, private company. If they wish to protect themselves from litigation (being an accessory to child abuse crimes) that is their legal prerogative.

There's always Microsoft products you can turn to . . .

How are you going to choose to avoid Apple products for scanning your photos unless you know that Apple wants to scan your photos? So I’m telling you that Apple wants to scan your photos. Now you are in a position to choose.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

The article indicated it will scan people's iPhones, not just the cloud.   I'm not sure if that's accurate, but it's what the article indicates.  (I've personally refrained from using the cloud for several reasons).   

What I wonder is how their scanning algorithm will know the difference between a 17 year old child and 18 year old adult.

I think initially they will not be making new determinations. They will be looking for photos on a list they have already compiled. At least initially.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Use Linux

Why, you have something to hide ?

Abbitt Photography wrote:
What I wonder is how their scanning algorithm will know the difference between a 17 year old child and 18 year old adult.

Facial recognition, IP & location address, behavioral patterns, etc. artificial intelligence knows who everyone is that was born after, or participates heavily in selfie culture. Duh

Red Sky Photography wrote:
From Forbes Magazine:

How to stop Apple scanning your photos

Because the CSAM scanning is only happening on iCloud photos, there’s one very obvious way to prevent Apple checking your images: Turn off cloud storage for your photos.

This is very simple. Go to your settings, scroll down to Photos and flick the switch to iCloud Photos. It’s turned on by default so will need turning off if you’re a new user.

Turning this off, of course, means you’ll have a lot less storage for your photos, unless you have one of the more expensive iPhones with more space.

I don't believe that's correct. The way this is reported is that the initial scanning would be done on-phone, based on known hashes.

Managing Light wrote:
Actually, they're limited to checking only those images stored on their version of "the cloud."
Don't store your images there and you're home free.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
The article indicated it will scan people's iPhones, not just the cloud.

I was referring to the info in a WSJ article that ran yesterday - they explicitly stated that Apple would scan only Cloud accounts. You are correct - the quoted article in the OP did say they will scan phones.

We'll have to wait to see what settles out of this.

My personal feeling is that if they plan on scanning phones, it's gonna cost them a huge amount of business.

Managing Light wrote:

Managing Light wrote:
Actually, they're limited to checking only those images stored on their version of "the cloud."
Don't store your images there and you're home free.

I was referring to the info in a WSJ article that ran yesterday - they explicitly stated that Apple would scan only Cloud accounts. You are correct - the quoted article in the OP did say they will scan phones.

We'll have to wait to see what settles out of this.

My personal feeling is that if they plan on scanning phones, it's gonna cost them a huge amount of business.

Thanks for clarifying how the information you have heard is different from the article the OP referenced.    Time will tell.

Personally, I don’t do I cloud* for a variety of reasons and have never had child porn on my phone or ICloud to the best of my knowledge.  (I’m technologically inept enough someone could have uploaded something without my knowledge).   What concerns me more is the direction this may go. 

*. I do an iCloud link between my iPad and cell phone photos, but that’s it.   A friend of mine who saves many thousands of photos to iCloud ran into problems with Apple reducing the resolution of his images, so now he can’t make large prints of anything.  That alone was enough to turn me off iCloud and save images important to me by alternative means.

Chuckarelei wrote:
Steve Jobs is rolling over in his grave.

...in his unmarked grave, because he didnt want people looking for it?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … dangerous/

Researchers from Princeton that created a similar system.

lot of good info in that article. especially about the databases part, it could be used to search for anything.
its a slippery slope.

i know this stuff is already done to some degree anyways.
how else do phones categorize images? scenery, expressions, individual people even.
i guess they want to go farther and this is the way to implement it without consent?

JQuest wrote:
There's actually a fix to this, as unlikely as it seems. Start using an actual camera to capture pictures again. Oddly enough, I'm okay with that.

You don’t scan your film?

JQuest wrote:
There's actually a fix to this, as unlikely as it seems. Start using an actual camera to capture pictures again. Oddly enough, I'm okay with that.

um, what?! fix for what?
the concerning thing is the technology to search like that and how else it can be applied / exploited to violate privacy.
i hope no one here has any pictures they would be looking for. if so you got serious problems.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
um, what?! fix for what?
the concerning thing is the technology to search like that and how else it can be applied / exploited to violate privacy.
i hope no one here has any pictures they would be looking for. if so you got serious problems.

I get that you like to fashion yourself as some kind of rogue provocateur however this shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand. If you don’t want Apple searching through your pictures don’t use an iPhone to take pictures with. If you don’t want them searching your device, don’t use a device made by them.

JQuest wrote:

I get that you like to fashion yourself as some kind of rogue provocateur however this shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand. If you don’t want Apple searching through your pictures don’t use an iPhone to take pictures with. If you don’t want them searching your device, don’t use a device made by them.

It obviously does or will apply to any cloud-based thing

JQuest wrote:
I get that you like to fashion yourself as some kind of rogue provocateur however this shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand. If you don’t want Apple searching through your pictures don’t use an iPhone to take pictures with. If you don’t want them searching your device, don’t use a device made by them.

actually i identify as a meat popsicle, but if you would like to imagine me as a rogue provocateur that sounds nice too. I feel like perhaps that title comes with a cape and hat. maybe a pointy sword.
yes, i can comprehend that if you dont use a device, you arent bound to the shortcomings of the device.
that concept is not beyond my comprehension. 
the reason i replied with:
"um, what?! fix for what?"
because i was trying to point out to you, without being blunt that your response makes it sound as if you are attempting to conceal explicit images.
you were too dense to pick up on that i guess?

"Apple to scan iPhones for sexually explicit material involving children"

and then your response was:

JQuest wrote:
There's actually a fix to this, as unlikely as it seems. Start using an actual camera to capture pictures again. Oddly enough, I'm okay with that.

my post was asking for affirmation from you that the concerning thing is:
"the technology to search like that and how else it can be applied / exploited to violate privacy."
and not concealing explicit images of children from being searched for.

I was trying to give you a chance to save face, but i guess you didnt realize you made yourself (inadvertently?) sound like a creep. I have no reason to believe you are, but i cant speak for others, or how someone may perceive reading your post in the future, so i was just trying to politely make you aware of being a little more careful with your phrasing when it regards a sensitive matter. Guess you couldnt read between the lines.

j_francis_imagery wrote:
It obviously does or will apply to any cloud-based thing

any device with an I.P address could in theory be accessed right?
not just cloud stuff.
so as rfordphotos said:
It is impossible to fault the "intent".
but then once the door is open how far does it go with monitoring individual's activities and snooping through their data for whatever purpose?
i feel like it would just be used to manipulate people and sell them more stuff and thats bad enough already.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
actually i identify as a meat popsicle, but if you would like to imagine me as a rogue provocateur that sounds nice too. I feel like perhaps that title comes with a cape and hat. maybe a pointy sword.
yes, i can comprehend that if you dont use a device, you arent bound to the shortcomings of the device.
that concept is not beyond my comprehension. 
the reason i replied with:
"um, what?! fix for what?"
because i was trying to point out to you, without being blunt that your response makes it sound as if you are attempting to conceal explicit images.
you were too dense to pick up on that i guess?

and then your response was:

my post was asking for affirmation from you that the concerning thing is:
"the technology to search like that and how else it can be applied / exploited to violate privacy."
and not concealing explicit images of children from being searched for.

I was trying to give you a chance to save face, but i guess you didnt realize you made yourself (inadvertently?) sound like a creep. I have no reason to believe you are, but i cant speak for others, or how someone may perceive reading your post in the future, so i was just trying to politely make you aware of being a little more careful with your phrasing when it regards a sensitive matter. Guess you couldnt read between the lines.

Once again a famous Paulo post explaining how you were trying to help, when you were doing no such thing. I don’t need to save face, if you don’t want your devices searched then don’t use them is the answer. You obviously could not comprehend that and stuck your foot in your face trying to be cute with a reply.

As for trying to conceal things, please cease projecting your own concerns  and inadequacies about how you may be caught doing bad things onto others. One of Your favorite forum tactics is to try and twist a conversation to make someone look bad. You’re transparent and you’re a bully. You are neither funny nor as smart as you think you are. Just own it when you get called out on your own bullshit and we’ll all be fine.

As for sounding and or looking like a creep. Again you’re  projecting your own opinion of yourself on to another as you so often do to anyone who points out your continued prevarications and ridiculousness in these forums. I pity you, you seem very sad and lonely to have to spend so much time and effort behaving like this, and as entertaining as this has been you’re no longer worth my time.

JQuest wrote:
Once again a famous Paulo post explaining how you were trying to help, when you were doing no such thing. I don’t need to save face, if you don’t want your devices searched then don’t use them is the answer. You obviously could not comprehend that and stuck your foot in your face trying to be cute with a reply.

As for trying to conceal things, please cease projecting your own concerns  and inadequacies about how you may be caught doing bad things onto others. One of Your favorite forum tactics is to try and twist a conversation to make someone look bad. You’re transparent and you’re a bully. You are neither funny nor as smart as you think you are. Just own it when you get called out on your own bullshit and we’ll all be fine.

As for sounding and or looking like a creep. Again you’re  projecting your own opinion of yourself on to another as you so often do to anyone who points out your continued prevarications and ridiculousness in these forums. I pity you, you seem very sad and lonely to have to spend so much time and effort behaving like this, and as entertaining as this has been you’re no longer worth my time.

thanks for spending so much time telling me about your version of me, and how im not worth your time.
i enjoy the additional irony of your personal attacks on me, followed up with calling me a bully.
if i insulted you somehow, i apologize, but i never called you any names or made any assumptions about you (like you did to me) or anything so....? you might want to check who is really "projecting" as you put it.
i was just asking you to clarify what you meant in your post, and then you starting insulting me.

the very best (humorous to me) part is you're adamant that i can't comprehend a concept, even though the first time you mentioned the concept was to say i couldnt comprehend it. seriously WTF.
if you meant:
"If you don’t want them searching your device, don’t use a device made by them."
then you should have said that in your first post, but instead you didnt say that until later, when in the same post you were already insulting me by saying:
"shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand."
how do you get upset with someone for not understanding something, when you havent even mentioned the thing yet, and given them a chance to read it and comprehend?

in your first post in this thread, which is the one i was responding to, you said the "fix" was "start using an actual camera" to take pictures. There was no mention of boycotting a device.
regardless of whatever you meant, or you think your post implies, in reality using "an actual camera" as you suggested in no way would prevent apple from developing the technology or using a noble cause as a reason or excuse to search peoples phones. obviously you didnt realize that.
the only thing your method would "fix" would be actually hiding content from them.
thats why i tried to prompt you to clarify what you meant.
the rest of us were discussing how the technology could open up the door for other breaches of privacy.
we're not concerned about the content of our photos.
you came in mentioning a way to hide content by using an alternative method of creating it.
see how that could be misconstrued as you being a Creepy McCreeperson?

really, i'm just happy you replied so i have a reason to post the second half of that wonka gif.

kickfight wrote:
They can look through my photos and messages but they better not be fapping to them.

What am I saying, OF COURSE they will be fapping to them... that's the whole point.

Congrats. You just invented Fapple.

Paolo D Photography wrote:
Congrats. You just invented Fapple.

Great. It's time to IPO. OK, done, FAPL's up and running. Fuck, Google just bought us out for eleventy billion dollars.

Damn, that was fast.

kickfight wrote:
Great. It's time to IPO. OK, done, FAPL's up and running. Fuck, Google just bought us out for eleventy billion dollars.

Damn, that was fast.

hell yeah! make dem billions.
my other billion dollar ideas are in SF2 if you want to keep it going