“Dates and times when a file or object was modified are used to sort a user’s information, and checksums of file and photo data are used to help Apple de-duplicate and optimize the user’s iCloud and device storage—all without having access to the files and photos themselves.”
So Apple only encrypts the files but not the metadata? If that's true the encryption is basically worthless because Apple is still able to "see" what files you upload and scan them for CSAM, copyright infringement or videos of 1989 Tiananmen Square.
The chairman of the board, and several other members, is appointed by the UK head of state (the monarch), on recommendation of government ministers. There is also a revolving door between high up positions in the Tory party (the party of government), and high up positions in the BBC.
Sure: RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya)[10] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the tax budget of the Russian government.
They're not state-owned but they are certainly not independent. All mainstream media is tightly bound to a political party or another. Fox and MSNBC are mirrors of misinformation.
>Bound to a political party or another
That's the difference between Fox News and RT. Even though the US president is a democrat now, Fox News is still broadcasting Republican views. But as soon as Russia replaces its president, RT is going to broadcast exactly his or her views.
This is true, but more of a problem than you're making it out to be. In my country all channels are clearly on the payroll of a certain party. For example, if there is a political debate, they'll have pre and post debate interviews with only one of the candidates, make claims of his victory no matter how badly he screwed up, and always allow him to interrupt the other guy. This sort of stuff really undermines democracy.
That's really cool. I'm shifting my digital life from my MacBook to my iPhone right now - and blogging from my notes app sounds like an easy way to stay in touch with the world.
Axel Springer's biggest newspaper is BILD - and it's like the German version of The Sun in Great Britain. The reception section in BILD's Wikipedia article has some interesting "highlights" from the paper's history:
> * Apple should be fined to impose such a huge internet traffic for... nothing: each iOS or here macOS minor update weighs hundreds of megabytes, sometimes even gigabytes*
Most YouTube videos and Netflix movies I watch use more bandwidth than Apple‘s updates. Do you want to fine them too?
I request security. I deliberately choose devices and platforms that receive prompt, frequent security updates. Nearly every iOS and macOS update seems to be filled with security patches.
Should users be able to choose whether to accept changes and new features? Probably. Should they be able to opt out of security updates? Not on internet-connected devices.
This gets better every day. It‘s really interesting how Apple destroyed its heavily marketed privacy image in like two days. And instead of stopping they double down with every new press release. That‘s really some courage right there.
Eh, this doesn't seem that bad. The headline doesn't really make it clear but this sounds more "here's an API to do this in your own apps" rather than "we'll do it for you".
I think it'd be an interesting API to have available, could be beneficial to a number of apps that might not have the means to build this stuff themselves.
Imagine if Firefox Send had an API for this - maybe it'd still be around. ;P
The question is why Apple implemented this feature in the first place. There was no reason for them to suddenly expand their image scanning to the devices themselves and risk their position as the self-proclaimed saviors of privacy - and still they did exactly that. There had to be some push from the government behind all of that, otherwise this debacle just doesn't make any sense.
They also could embed the whole database into iOS and activate certain hashes only for certain iCloud accounts. No one would know because the database is encrypted multiple times.
They could do a lot of things. They’ve told us what they do. It’s not this. The FAQ released yesterday specifically says that users cannot be targeted.
> The same set of hashes is stored in the operating system of every iPhone and iPad user, so targeted attacks against only specific individuals are not possible under our design.
The problem with this sentence is that Apple assumes that they can't target specific individuals because every iPhone and iPad user has the exact same database in their iOS device.
But what if they have a hash in the database where they know that only one person has this exact image on their device? This way you could single out one individual with the same database.
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/advanced-data-prote...
So Apple only encrypts the files but not the metadata? If that's true the encryption is basically worthless because Apple is still able to "see" what files you upload and scan them for CSAM, copyright infringement or videos of 1989 Tiananmen Square.