Louis Rossmann says MacOS is scanning your files without consent

[orionquest]

First word in post discredits this whole thread. Lets move along, this is just for clicks and views nothing more.

 

[russell_314]

Yes, if he only read some credible sources... https://eclecticlight.co/2023/01/18/is-apple-checking-images-we-view-in-the-finder/

EDIT: oh, I see this has been brought already. Nevermind. Good research needs help.

This is very interesting. I would really love to see Apple comment on what’s going on. It’s not good that they’re doing something random and people have to speculate what it is. We have one person saying that image data is being uploaded according to his firewall, and another saying no that doesn’t happen.

I personally think Rossman is just jumping on the Apple hate train, of course but that doesn’t mean something isn’t going on. The article Rosman’s referring to isn’t written by him. Rossman doesn’t have credibility so I would like to see this explained by Apple.

Is Apple sending data like this guy says his firewall is detecting or are they not and what exactly is this data?

 

[russell_314]

First word in post discredits this whole thread. Lets move along, this is just for clicks and views nothing more.

Yes, Rossman is highly biased but he’s quoting another source. It would be silly to dismiss it without some type of review. We can’t just be like Rosman bad, Apple good everything’s OK now.

 

[Jason J. Schneider]

That’s the biggest problem with any kind of spying or data collection is you don’t know what that corporation or government is doing with it.

I do understand what you are saing and where you're coming from, but I do not encourage this type of thinking. Above, I just described these different systems, for context, not necessarily related to the Louis video or the article he's quoting.

Look, if you go down this road, we won't use any technology whatsoever. Because everything could be used to spy on you, in the end: your smart light bulb, your Tesla car, your 3rd party app, your operating system, your router, your refrigerator, the ISP, your smart watch (the apps inside it), everything that literally connects to the Internet and transfer packages, etc, etc...

My reasoning is this. I have listen to the Louis recording, have read the quoted article that jumps to bombastic conclusions without any evidence, I have read the counter arguments and the articles that actually describe in more details how these systems work and I can make an assumed and mature conclusion based on the informations presented by each individual, that this is NOT CSAM, and there is NO ONE at Apple out to spy on me, or deploy infrastructure that secretly scan every photo (even considering that this is not even how the original CSAM system should have worked).

 

[russell_314]

I do understand what you are saing and where you're coming from, but I do not encourage this type of thinking. Above, I just described these different systems, for context, not necessarily related to the Louis video or the article he's quoting.

Look, if you go down this road, we won't use any technology whatsoever. Because everything could be used to spy on you, in the end: your smart light bulb, your Tesla car, your 3rd party app, your operating system, your router, your refrigerator, the ISP, your smart watch (the apps inside it), everything that literally connects to the Internet and transfer packages, etc, etc...

My reasoning is this. I have listen to the Louis recording, have read the quoted article that jumps to bombastic conclusions without any evidence, I have read the counter arguments and the articles that actually describe in more details how these systems work and I can make an assumed and mature conclusion based on the informations presented by each individual, that this is NOT CSAM, and there is NO ONE at Apple out to spy on me, or deploy infrastructure that secretly scan every photo (even considering that this is not even how the original CSAM system should have worked).

I understand where you’re coming from and I don’t like Rosman with some of his conclusions but… I’m a big believer in privacy and securing your personal data. If my data is out there, I’m going to assume the worst just so I can plan. Apple is not your friend or someone you know. They are a corporation that will do what’s in the best interest for their profit margin. I don’t hate Apple, but I realize that there are certain things that are just the way they are. If the Chinese government told Apple, you either cooperate with us or we’re going to make your life miserable, Apple would cooperate. They have to. Like it when even a company like Apple has access to my data. They may be the most friendly well-intentioned company, but if under pressure they will cave to survive.

What I would like to see is this start hitting major news networks so that forces Apple to have a response. Let Apple do some talking and tell us what is going off prayers if they can have one of their engineers, explain exactly what data is being collected and how it’s being used then I think everyone would feel better or at least have an understanding instead of wild speculation

 

[Jason J. Schneider]

What I would like to see is this start hitting major news networks so that forces Apple to have a response. Let Apple do some talking and tell us what is going off prayers if they can have one of their engineers, explain exactly what data is being collected and how it’s being used then I think everyone would feel better or at least have an understanding instead of wild speculation

Yes, in this case, if this story gets enough traction, I think Apple could come up with a statement. But, then, would you believe them, I ask? Because either way, you won't have any way of verifying that what they say is true or not. I mean, Apple would not go into many details, even if they will come up with a statement, and Howard Oakley's articles already offer a pretty extensive look inside VLU.

I mean, what I'm trying to say is, logically, if you don't trust at all what Apple said in their first statement (of not pursuing CSAM for iCloud Photos anymore), why would you trust them with a new statement now?

PS:
I really believe Louis should come up with an updated video on this matter, after he does a little bit of research.

 

[hwojtek]

This person is not using any type of iMessage or iCloud so I don’t see why it would be that.

So his Preview.app knew precisely what is a text on a photo and what is not.

 

[russell_314]

would you believe them, I ask? Because either way, you won't have any way of verifying that what they say is true or not.

No, not really, because they have so much incentive to lie if it wasn’t true.

PS:
I really believe Louis should come up with an updated video on this matter, after he does a little bit of research.

I agree, and I hope he does. If anything, it will provide more information and push the spotlight on Apple.

 

[Analog Kid]

He promotes the right to repair, which is something that apple steadfastly fought against. Even their repair kit is designed and priced in such away that makes a repair by apple easier and cheaper then using that kit.

As I said, folk hero. Him and Paul Bunyan.

What Apple is fighting for is their right to maintain the integrity and quality of their products and brand. The repair kit isn't designed and priced to make it easier and cheaper to take the product to Apple, it is designed to ensure a quality repair and priced accordingly. It is simply a fact that it will be easier and cheaper to get a quality repair done by Apple because of scale.

If you're still buying Apple products then the ability to open them and make low level changes or repairs is simply not a top priority for you.

 

[Analog Kid]

Apple is, however, still planning to roll out a form of CSAM detection as a parental control in the Messages app, but only as an opt in.

No, no they are not. They are planning to put content detection in Messages to allow parents to have some control over material they consider inappropriate, but it will not be detecting material of child sexual abuse or comparing to databases of known CSAM, or reporting anyone to the authorities even on an opt in basis.

CSAM is not shorthand for nudie pics or sexting, it is a very specific thing that Apple had developed a very specific privacy preserving process to scan for-- and they have said clearly that they do not plan to deploy that process in their products.

Yes, Rossman is highly biased but he’s quoting another source.

That doesn't make anything more credible, if anything it makes it more suspect. Multiple indirections and requotings doesn't magically sanitize bovine fecal matter.

Ok, but do we know what mediaanalysisd is sending over the wire? I wasn't even aware of this happening. And to be honest I also did not expect this to happen as a naive user of macOS.

I think the comments in the article linked by @cthompson94 summarizes it well:

The only thing you should have written is: "a process made a connection, but I don't know what the process is for or what the connection is for, and I do not know how to investigate it". Your readers could then conclude a bunch:​

​

- You use little snitch​

- But you don't really know how noisy an OS can be​

- Noise seems scary to you​

- But you don't know why​

- And you don't know how to find out​

A modern OS hits the network for a huge number of reasons.

How do you know this is or isn’t CSAM? The only information we have is Apple is sending photo data back to their servers or some server.

How do we know the author isn't a child pornographer? The only information we have is that they've tried everything to avoid having their images scanned, they looked at one in Finder saw Apple ping a local server and their first reaction was "****! They're scanning for child sexual abuse material!"

I mean, if we're going to assume guilt in one instance, why not the other? What do you know about this author that makes them more credible than a company with a trillion dollar reputation built on promoting privacy?

This is very interesting. I would really love to see Apple comment on what’s going on.

Why? Read the eclectic light article linked above-- there were 40,000 log messages associated with minute of viewing an image. Do you really need 40,000 press releases explaining each? You aren't going to get that.

I think Apple could come up with a statement. But, then, would you believe them, I ask? Because either way, you won't have any way of verifying that what they say is true or not.

Exactly this.

No, not really, because they have so much incentive to lie if it wasn’t true.

Then you're using the wrong OS. What you want is a stripped down Linux kernel that you've personally code reviewed and then air gap it.

The rest of us live in the modern world and want a modern OS with modern features and have chosen to source that from a company that has made privacy a central point of focus and has a business model that is sustainable without profiting off our personal data.

I also highly value privacy and can get obsessive about it at times, but I can't worry about every server ping so I generally trust Apple and then opt out of certain things I can do without.

If my life depended on certain information not leaking, or if I had things that were really important for me to hide, I'd go with the air gapped Linux box or just stick with pen and paper and a good cypher.

 

[maflynn]

What Apple is fighting for is their right to maintain the integrity and quality

I totally disagree with that ideal. I don't believe its integrity and quality. The consumer should have the right to choose whomever they want to repair the property they own.

Don't forget, on more then one location, apple disabled a feature, or component of the iPhone if it was repaired by a non-apple person. That's not a move by a company looking out for the wellbeing of its customer.

Apple blocks Right to Repair by making it impossible to replace the iPhone 12 camera module
Unofficial iPhone 13 Screen Repairs Disables Face ID\
iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

 

[russell_314]

How do we know the author isn't a child pornographer? The only information we have is that they've tried everything to avoid having their images scanned, they looked at one in Finder saw Apple ping a local server and their first reaction was "****! They're scanning for child sexual abuse material!"

We don’t. I really dislike the attitude that if you want privacy, you must be breaking the law or doing something wrong.

Then you're using the wrong OS. What you want is a stripped down Linux kernel that you've personally code reviewed and then air gap it.

No. Just because I want privacy doesn’t mean I have to go to some open source Linux OS. Maybe I want the features of macOS. Just because I criticize or don’t like one aspect doesn’t mean I’m using the wrong OS. I’m not “Holding it wrong”. It’s okay to want more or even call out a company for doing something you disagree with. You don’t have to worship their products or company to like them.

 

[Analog Kid]

I totally disagree with that ideal. I don't believe its integrity and quality. The consumer should have the right to choose whomever they want to repair the property they own.

Don't forget, on more then one location, apple disabled a feature, or component of the iPhone if it was repaired by a non-apple person. That's not a move by a company looking out for the wellbeing of its customer.

Apple blocks Right to Repair by making it impossible to replace the iPhone 12 camera module
Unofficial iPhone 13 Screen Repairs Disables Face ID\
iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

Then you're buying from the wrong company.

I don't see anything you're linking to that disputes my point, but I'm curious if you have any data on how much of Apple's $100 billion in annual profit comes from repairs? Do you have any links to anything other than people speculating on why Apple is controlling the repair pipeline?

 

[Analog Kid]

We don’t. I really dislike the attitude that if you want privacy, you must be breaking the law or doing something wrong.

Just for the record, you excised my main point:

I mean, if we're going to assume guilt in one instance, why not the other? What do you know about this author that makes them more credible than a company with a trillion dollar reputation built on promoting privacy?

I also don't like assuming that people or companies are doing something nefarious based on speculation on scarce data. My point wasn't about the author's activity, my point was that people are looking at garbage data and drawing a conclusion. The author did this, but the same could be turned on them. They didn't share any information about their experiment but people seem to trust it implicitly based on how it was framed.

No. Just because I want privacy doesn’t mean I have to go to some open source Linux OS. Maybe I want the features of macOS. Just because I criticize or don’t like one aspect doesn’t mean I’m using the wrong OS. I’m not “Holding it wrong”. It’s okay to want more or even call out a company for doing something you disagree with. You don’t have to worship their products or company to like them.

Sure, but it's a question of what you're likely to get. I don't expect Apple or Microsoft to cater to every fleeting paranoid flare up.

 

[maflynn]

I don't see anything you're linking to that disputes my point

So be it, Apple loves folks who unflinchingly supports them. Hey, its your money, your decision, but when I see a company that markets themselves one way and their actions are counter, that tells me a lot of their sincerity.

 

[russell_314]

We don’t. I really dislike the attitude that if you want privacy, you must be breaking the law or doing something wrong.


No. Just because I want privacy doesn’t mean I have to go to some open source Linux OS. Maybe I want the features of macOS. Just because I criticize or don’t like one aspect doesn’t mean I’m using the wrong OS. I’m not “Holding it wrong”. It’s okay to want more or even call out a company for doing something you disagree with. You don’t have to worship their products or company to like them.

The difference is, I’m not trusting that dude with my data. I would not trust him with my data.

Also, an expectation of privacy isn’t paranoia.

 

[russell_314]

So be it, Apple loves folks who unflinchingly supports them. Hey, its your money, your decision, but when I see a company that markets themselves one way and their actions are counter, that tells me a lot of their sincerity.

Unfortunately, some people will support a brand no matter what they do. I support Apple on things I agree with, but if I don’t like it or agree with it, I’m not going to blindly support and worship them.

 

[Jason J. Schneider]

No, no they are not. They are planning to put content detection in Messages to allow parents to have some control over material they consider inappropriate, but it will not be detecting material of child sexual abuse or comparing to databases of known CSAM, or reporting anyone to the authorities even on an opt in basis.

Yep, true. I was actually thinking this, but writing that. Did not choose the proper words to describe it.

Then you're using the wrong OS. What you want is a stripped down Linux kernel that you've personally code reviewed and then air gap it.

Yes, and his name will be Richard Stallman. 😂

Joking aside, the discussion here is not whether CSAM is etical, moral or by principle worth implementing or not inside any computer system. We should not deviate from the topic. That is an entirely different topic.

Here, Louis just got some random article that assumes things without any documentation, in a situation that is clearly wrong, because we actually have other articles that describe the inner working of those systems in detail. That’s it. As I‘ve said above, I suspect Louis will come with a retraction after this. It’s not the first time doing so.

 

[Analog Kid]

So be it, Apple loves folks who unflinchingly supports them. Hey, its your money, your decision, but when I see a company that markets themselves one way and their actions are counter, that tells me a lot of their sincerity.

When you see a company that markets themselves one way and someone raises suspicions that their actions are counter but you have insufficient knowledge to evaluate either claim, you draw a conclusion about sincerity that may not be well founded.

Unfortunately, some people will support a brand no matter what they do. I support Apple on things I agree with, but if I don’t like it or agree with it, I’m not going to blindly support and worship them.

And, as this whole thread puts in bold, some people will give credence to every conspiracy theory no matter how flimsy the evidence and despite much stronger evidence to the contrary.

I neither unflinchingly support, nor worship any person or company. My views on Apple's product quality and repair strategies are based on my experience and education (but no inside knowledge). Maybe you have the education and experience or inside information you can't share that drives your conclusion, and you have no reason to trust my claims of education and experience so all we have is logic and reason.

I asked for evidence that Apple's actions are profit motivated and not an effort to protect the integrity and quality of their brand and products and the response I got was that I'm a sheep for asking. Somehow asking "how do you know that?" is evidence of blind support, but claiming that it's all a big corporate conspiracy is evidence of critical thinking.

Saying "unqualified people opening intricate devices and replacing components with others of uncertain provenance can degrade the quality of a product" is a sign of worship. Saying "it's about profit because of course it is" is all red pill clarity.

I have no interest in turning this into another right to repair thread where people who just feel things in their guts rail about the injustice of it all.

 

[Analog Kid]

The difference is, I’m not trusting that dude with my data. I would not trust him with my data.

Also, an expectation of privacy isn’t paranoia.

No but you're trusting that dude as a basis for your world view.

An expectation of privacy isn't paranoia. Assuming that Apple is going against their public statements based on some random guy's screenshot of a popup and demanding Apple account for it is.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

and he is a cat lover, how can he ne all that bad?

Insert image of James Bond villain stroking a cat here...

 

[Alex W.]

Am i missing something here or are ALOT of people overly emotional in defending an almost trillion-dollar company?

Anything that could remotely impede your freedom of speech and privacy should be HEAVILY looked into instead then dismissed...

 

[galad]

No, we are just saying that they have exactly zero proofs, before making such accusation you should at least reverse engineer and see what's actually is going on.

 

[Jason J. Schneider]

Am i missing something here or are ALOT of people overly emotional in defending an almost trillion-dollar company?

Anything that could remotely impede your freedom of speech and privacy should be HEAVILY looked into instead then dismissed...

No, not defending. I don't think we defend Apple here. Actually we point out the errors and misleadings (willingly or not) from Jeffrey Paul's original article:

• first, he stated in that article that Apple lied killing CSAM, but gives an old statement from Apple. Because if you actually go and read the article from the Wired, you can find there the latest Apple statement that actually say they will not go on with it. I actually pasted that statement here, along with a MacRumors article on that issue.
• now, because the narrative in Jeffrey's article is along the lines of „the statement given is ambiguous, so the media outlets got it wrong”, he goes on speculating that CSAM is turned on silently because he discovered that a process called mediaanalysisd is asking to communicate with Apple over the network.
  • no further investigation has been done on how long that process existed on macOS (and OSX even), to support such a serious accusation. No further investigation on what that process is doing, what part of the operating system is actually controlling it and why, no further investigation on what is actually send over the wire, nothing. The conclusion in very short terms is given plain and simple: this process requested network access, so my photo was sent to Apple.
  • Jeffrey's article doesn't even take into consideration that the CSAM implementation described by Apple in white papers and on their on press release is using only the media inside Photos.app and if and only if the iCloud Photos service was enabled. For a critical mind, this could have triggered an warning at least, to check if maybe, there is something else going on in there.

I've posted here and here explanations and further articles that details the system that is using that process, a process that predates CSAM announcement by far. So now we have to remember:

• Apple recently released features in all their platform that enables us to:
  • see categories of photos based on their background analysis (photos of animals, landscapes, flowers, mountains, etc)
  • copy text from a photo
  • extract a subject from a photo
  • copy text from videos
  • extract subject from videos
  • and all of these, work seamlessly within everything inside the Apple operating system's: photos inside web pages, photos inside apps aaand... even photos inside Finder.app. You don't need to have iCloud enabled, or any other Apple service enabled.

Now, as I've said before, in an earlier message, an educated and assumed guess, inferred from all the informations we have -and mind you, we have some informations on this- will be that Apple, during VLU, requests a neural hash to compute what that hash represents and sends it back to the user.

Question: is this CSAM?
Answer: Obviously is not!

Moving on from this, we can debate further if, what that hash actually represent, is that hash considered personal information (and if yes, based on what?), how long does Apple stores those hashes. Do they train a machine learning algorithm with them (because most certainly I think they do). Should they ask for user permission each time a request like this is made (and risk turn macOS in a very fancy version of Vista)?

But all of this are separate topics and moves further away from the main point: an accusation was made (again, willingly or not) based on an assumption, about something, without any research on that direction. And Louis, unfortunately, although I stand with him on many points he makes, took that and amplified it without research or any critical thinking on the matter.

 

[Analog Kid]

Internet: Apple's water bill increased in the second half of 2022, they're drowning puppies.

YouTube: Oh my god, guys, Apple is drowning puppies!!! 🐶🛁 🔥🔥🔥

Normie: Wait, doesn't it make more sense this is just because of return to work after covid?

Nerd: Yeah, their water bill is still only 80% of 2019 and residential use has fallen by a similar amount.

MacRumors: Why are you defending a trillion dollar company?!

Am i missing something here or are ALOT of people overly emotional in defending an almost trillion-dollar company?

Anything that could remotely impede your freedom of speech and privacy should be HEAVILY looked into instead then dismissed...

Think of it this way, the more time people waste chasing debunked conspiracy theories, the less time and energy they have to pursue actual issues.