I only keep an iPhone and an Android phone for testing apps. But since I heard that interested parties can eavesdrop through mobile phones, I now leave them turned off.

Not every computer has a microphone and camera connected to it. But most mobile phones do and that is where the problem lies. One only needs to access the phone.

One reason why I don't have a "smart phone" (or any other kind... land line only)

Phones can be turned on by third parties, so take extra care when turning off. Friend of mine discovered a novel use for a fruitcake tin as a storage bin. (yeah, sounds tin foil hat, but I suppose it might actually work!)

Friend of mine discovered a novel use for a fruitcake tin as a storage bin.

That makes a lot of sense.

Put aside the tin foil hat brigade, the real important thing is whether this is a legal step too far. The purpose intended, as stated, is to scan for illegal images, which nobody in their right mind would want on their system.

I fear this might go wrong with some types of images, as we've seen previously, where the algo (machine learning) on system qualifies the image incorrectly and some poor individual becomes unfairly and unreasonably called to task, and worse, the systems, or lack of, release the details incorrectly, or wrongly store a red flag against an innocent individual.

What about the Apple employees reviewing these images? Are they Apple employees, or subcontractors? Are the individuals reviewing these things protected from the potential horrors, along with their mental health.
What happens to those reviewed images after review? How secure are all those images? And where does it stop? Are there more images and documents they are going to start scanning?

There are so many safeguarding and privacy issues, imho.

You may think you have nothing to hide, and I can hold my head up, however, do I want a stranger scanning or reviewing my stupid selfies and pictures? The short answer is, no.

I don't doubt Apple and its lawyers have gone over this many times. However, there is one more issue that the move might fall foul of privacy laws in some territories.

and what about all these people who are taking photos or sex tapes, of their private life?

and what about all these people who are taking photos or sex tapes, of their private life?

Given the number of people who put these thing in the cloud (we hear about it when something happens, like a celebrity's sex tapes being leaked, but we will probably never know if a provider's employees sneak a look) a lot of people seem OK with the possiblity of strangers watching them. There is a similar risk from things like security cameras (internet connected ones) and microphones scattered around houses (even in bedrooms) and so on, I think there has been a cultural shift and people are willing to trade privacy for convenience and security.

One reason why I don't have a "smart phone" (or any other kind... land line only)

I wonder how long before that gets regarded a suspeicious behaviour? You must have something to hide!

I do not have a smartphone, but its becoming incrasingly difficult not to have one. For example, one of my credit cards (luckily not one I really use) closed their online backing website, so if you do not install their mobile app you are back to old fashined paper statements etc. What else might require it soon? Curing lockdown someme pubs around here were only taking orders through a mobile app. There are shops that do not accept cash already, so you have to pay with a card or a mobile app. They may at somepoint drop the card option.

[edited by: graeme_p at 11:15 am (utc) on Aug 9, 2021]

and what about all these people who are taking photos or sex tapes, of their private life

What a dumb thing to do... pay the consequence.

If you read the article.... they will be using a database of hashes for known images. Depends on the length of the hash value but I would imagine false positives would be non existent. Of course if someone changes a single pixel there is no match.

Regardless this is very bad precedent. The same technology could be used to identify all kinds of activities, e.g. political activists sharing a common image.

Apple publishes a document of FAQs attempting to counter the concerns raised. PDF [apple.com...]

- "hey sir, can I borrow your cellphone to call my wife really quickly?, I forgot my phone in the car"
- "Sure, here you go"
- *uploads or looks at a bad image* "Thanks, have a great day"

There you go, targeted, Apple will report you to police so now what, wait to have your life ruined unfairly? If you don't think Apple's process as it was described will create any problems or abuses look up swatting.

My main question(not covered in Apple's PDF but thanks), was - should tech services like Apple be policing individuals or should tech services have their networks policed by actual law enforcement instead? to protect kids of course, but also privacy violations.

[edited by: engine at 8:32 am (utc) on Aug 10, 2021]
[edit reason] please see TOS #24 [/edit]

It seems Apple are delaying the roll-out while it reconsiders the situation following "feedback."

“Last month we announced plans for features intended to help protect children from predators who use communication tools to recruit and exploit them, and limit the spread of Child Sexual Abuse Material. Based on feedback from customers, advocacy groups, researchers and others, we have decided to take additional time over the coming months to collect input and make improvements before releasing these critically important child safety features.”

[9to5mac.com...]

Think the potential for ruinous lawsuits might have been a factor in the the drawback and re-plan?