> While "cloud scanning" has some how been grudgingly accepted by many of us
Reading through these discussions, this is the one question I haven't seen a good answer to. Would any of us be speaking out like we are right now if Apple had chosen to do server-side scanning instead of on-device scanning, just like every other company?
There are many options for personal server hosting where the hardware and software are open for reverse engineering and inspection, so you could, at least in theory, host a server you control without needing to use Apple's offering. On the other hand, smartphones are proliferated by a duopoly and there are no viable options for using one where both stacks are made completely open. No company has the capability to openly push a scanning feature like this into the Linux kernel in the same way that Apple can openly announce they're going to add their own version of such a feature to their own operating system, because the power dynamic is completely different.
It sounds like the magnitude of the backlash people are expressing can be partially explained by the fact that Apple has such a large foothold on the personal device market in a world where smartphones are increasingly becoming necessary to live one's life, and due to the inability to choose a privacy-respecting device that is also competent enough to satisfy society's new expectations for smartphone usage, there is no good place to hide.
> Would any of us be speaking out like we are right now if Apple had chosen to do server-side scanning instead of on-device scanning, just like every other company?
People had voiced concern when BigTech started cloud scanning - either motivated by profits (data mining users data) or to comply with government regulations. That's why we saw an increased awareness of encryption technology (and why governments have now started cribbing about how encryption needs to go). We also saw a boycott of cloud tech by many privacy advocates. But one of the reason it has been grudgingly accepted is because, to some level, we do understand that all business services are bound by some regulation to ensure they are not participant in something illegal. And we still have a choice to not use these services.
But, as you rightly pointed out, avoiding these services does limit users. And obviously people do feel outraged by the preposterous idea that just because you produce some content and want to share it with even a single person, you are now expected to submit to a scan of your device. This is such a subversion of our hard fought rights.
Reading through these discussions, this is the one question I haven't seen a good answer to. Would any of us be speaking out like we are right now if Apple had chosen to do server-side scanning instead of on-device scanning, just like every other company?
There are many options for personal server hosting where the hardware and software are open for reverse engineering and inspection, so you could, at least in theory, host a server you control without needing to use Apple's offering. On the other hand, smartphones are proliferated by a duopoly and there are no viable options for using one where both stacks are made completely open. No company has the capability to openly push a scanning feature like this into the Linux kernel in the same way that Apple can openly announce they're going to add their own version of such a feature to their own operating system, because the power dynamic is completely different.
It sounds like the magnitude of the backlash people are expressing can be partially explained by the fact that Apple has such a large foothold on the personal device market in a world where smartphones are increasingly becoming necessary to live one's life, and due to the inability to choose a privacy-respecting device that is also competent enough to satisfy society's new expectations for smartphone usage, there is no good place to hide.