![]() ![]() One solution is limited to you actually pushing your data off your private device, the other is limited to a list of items you say you want to push off your device, but actually happens on your device. That's purely an implementation detail, and subject to change at any time. ![]() > You get to choose whether to push your data to Apple and trigger the scanning with their solution too. We should discuss this as a societal tradeoff, as you note, but we should not ignore that this was spurred by a company running out in front of what was required of it and implementing this system which many see as at the expense of their users privacy. To abstract the implementation from the primary implementer is to obfuscate some of the cause and effect here. Right now the differences are essentially per-company, since we've let our experiences be controlled almost entirely by a small subset of companies. ![]() > discuss the government/citizen tradeoffs in that light. The author even notes they were opposed to Facebook's end-to-end encryption previously, I assume because as for defaults it sets a precedent and makes it unsearchable, but I'm not sure the specific tradeoffs they weigh and points they consider since it's behind a paywall (and I'm not sure I agree). Then you get to choose whether to push your data to the third party or not, given the risks involved. That is indeed what the article does, does it not? It makes the case that storing online with a decryption key that can be used with a search warrant is probably the right trade off, and the way other companies sometimes implement this. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |