Comment by JimDabell
2 days ago
I don’t think you can accurately describe it as client-side scanning and false positives were not likely. Depending upon how you view it, false positives were either extremely unlikely, or 100% guaranteed for practically everybody. And if you think the latter part is a problem, please read up on it!
> I'm reminded of a recent hit-piece about Chat Control, in which one of the proponent politicians was quoted as complaining about not having a debate. They didn't actually want a debate, they wanted to not get backlash. They would never have changed their minds, so there's no grounds for a debate.
Right, well I wanted a debate. And Apple changed their minds. So how is it reminding you of that? Neither of those things apply here.
Forgot about the concept of bugs have we? How about making Apple vulnerable to demands from every government where they do business?
No thanks. I'll take a hammer to any device in my vicinity that implements police scanning.
> Forgot about the concept of bugs have we?
No, but I have a hard time imagining a bug that would meaningfully compromise this kind of system. Can you give an example?
> How about making Apple vulnerable to demands from every government where they do business?
They already are. So are Google, Meta, Microsoft, and all the other giants we all use. And all those other companies are already scanning your stuff. Meta made two million reports in 2024Q4 alone.
Imagine harder. Apple has had several high profile security bugs in the last few years, and their OS is decried here as a buggy mess every release. QA teams went out of fashion.
The onus is on you to prove perfection before ruining lives on hardware they paid for.
100x worse on the vulnerability front, as the tech could be bent to any whim. Importantly, none of what you described is client-side scanning. Even I consider abiding rules on others’ property fair.