5 ms·

So, why are we mad about this? The techniques used maintain perfect privacy throughought the process. It's a neat feature with no downsides for the user.

by miav 2y ago

drawkward 2y ago
Because apple could, just as easily, have auto opted-out everyone from this decision. I am not, by default, training data for AI or machine learning.
- foldr 2y ago
  Could Apple get any training data out of this, given the homomorphic encryption?
  - benwad 2y ago
    The purpose of the homomorphic encryption is that they can compare similar landmarks without seeing the unencrypted image data on the server side.
    - foldr 2y ago
      Right, so I assume that they can’t build up a database of images to use for training future models. But I was hoping someone who understands homomorphic encryption and machine learning better than me could confirm this.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    If not, then why the default opt-in?
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      Because it's a) a useful function for the app that b) can't practically be done entirely on-device, and c) they believe they're not sending anything private off-device.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        None of that justifies signing me up for something without my permission.
        dialup_sounds 2y ago
        That wasn't the question you asked. You asked "If not [for training data], then why the default opt-in?" and I gave three alternative reasons.
        drawkward 2y ago
        None of which are sufficient justifications...
        dialup_sounds 2y ago
        It must be awfully convenient to believe that the only possible reason for it to be on is the same reason you made up entirely based on nothing. Personally, I don't find that logic convincing.
        drawkward 2y ago
        Your reasoning is also based on nothing beyond your own speculation.
        dialup_sounds 2y ago
        no u a) Compensating for missing location metadata is a valid feature for a photo library. Peer competitor Google Photos also implements location estimation from landmarks. b) The sizes of contemporary general vision models and the size of the vector database for matching potentially millions of landmarks suggest that this is not suitable for running on-device. c) Apple's entire strategy is to do cloud computation without private data, so it stands to reason that they believe they're not using private data.
    - foldr 2y ago
      Apple turning a feature on by default can only possibly be a conspiracy to surreptitiously obtain training data from people’s photos? It couldn’t just be that they think most people will want the feature? It’s one thing to argue that Apple is doing this for nefarious reasons, but to suggest that this is somehow the only conceivable option is a bit nuts.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        >Apple turning a feature on by default can only possibly be a conspiracy to surreptitiously obtain training data from people’s photos? Apple-scale companies have done far worse. It is hardly a "conspiracy" to allege Apple behaves like other companies of its ilk. >It couldn’t just be that they think most people will want the feature? Apple doesn't care what the end user thinks. "A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them" -Steve Jobs >only conceivable option is a bit nuts. I am merely suggesting it as the most likely option, not the only option.
        foldr 2y ago
        I think it's technically impossible for Apple to get training data from this due to the encryption. In which case it's not a likely option at all.
        drawkward 2y ago
        The landmark tagging models are obviously trained on something. Apple still benefits from my involuntary participation.
        foldr 2y ago
        They’re not obviously trained on encrypted data that Apple can’t decrypt.
lapcat 2y ago
"We" don't automatically, naively assume that a brand new feature, which has undergone no external validation, that uploads data/metadata from your personal, private photos library without your foreknowledge or consent, is "perfect".
diggan 2y ago
> So, why are we mad about this? Not everyone wants the software/OSes we run to automatically send data elsewhere. I bought the damn device, I own it, yet somehow it/the company decides that some things it comes across on it, can be sent to the company? No thank you, I prefer consensual computing. > with no downsides for the user No downsides for you, with your requirements/use cases. If the user has a requirement of "Doesn't send anything to anyone without consent", then this is obviously a downside.
- helpfulContrib 2y ago
  >Not everyone wants the software/OSes we run to automatically send data elsewhere. I personally find it offensive when a mega-corp makes the assumption that my connection to the Internet is available for them to build for-profit services without giving me sufficient agency. The cant-disable-Wifi-safely dark pattern is bad enough. But turning me into a data harvester for their million-dollar services, without even thinking about giving me a cut? No thanks. Alas, these anti-patterns have become a norm by way of ignorance, and its not getting better.
bogdan 2y ago
The question should be "why are you not mad about this?".
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  I'm not mad about this because I use Google Photos, which has been doing the same thing for the last two years without people on the internet telling me to be mad about it.
  - bogdan 2y ago
    Using Google photos was your own choice. If your default browser decides tomorrow to opt you in to mine crypto, I'll wager you would be unhappy.
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      Not sure what you mean. Google Photos is the default on every smartphone I've ever owned and this setting has been on by default as long as it has existed. You could just as easily say "Using Apple Photos was your own choice" and get shouted down. The point is that outrage isn't automatic. Not everyone is going to be equally mad about a check box.
      - lern_too_spel 2y ago
        People aren't complaining that Apple Photos is installed by default. They're complaining that it's sending data up to Apple by default. You have to explicitly opt in to Google Photos backing up your photos to the cloud. That setting is not on by default.
  - ryandvm 2y ago
    Same. But honestly with all the "I pay extra for Apple because privacy" posts around here, I kind of expect better from them. Whereas everybody pretty much knows that if you dance with Google, they're going to be looking down your top...
cudgy 2y ago
Ok. Maybe Apple won’t mind running my executable and letting it send sensitive data to my server?

So, why are we mad about this? The techniques used maintain perfect privacy throughought the process. It's a neat feature with no downsides for the user.

by miav 2y ago

So, why are we mad about this? The techniques used maintain perfect privacy throughought the process. It's a neat feature with no downsides for the user.

drawkward 2y ago

Because apple could, just as easily, have auto opted-out everyone from this decision. I am not, by default, training data for AI or machine learning.

foldr 2y ago
Could Apple get any training data out of this, given the homomorphic encryption?
- benwad 2y ago
  The purpose of the homomorphic encryption is that they can compare similar landmarks without seeing the unencrypted image data on the server side.
  - foldr 2y ago
    Right, so I assume that they can’t build up a database of images to use for training future models. But I was hoping someone who understands homomorphic encryption and machine learning better than me could confirm this.
- drawkward 2y ago
  If not, then why the default opt-in?
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    Because it's a) a useful function for the app that b) can't practically be done entirely on-device, and c) they believe they're not sending anything private off-device.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      None of that justifies signing me up for something without my permission.
      - dialup_sounds 2y ago
        That wasn't the question you asked. You asked "If not [for training data], then why the default opt-in?" and I gave three alternative reasons.
        drawkward 2y ago
        None of which are sufficient justifications...
        dialup_sounds 2y ago
        It must be awfully convenient to believe that the only possible reason for it to be on is the same reason you made up entirely based on nothing. Personally, I don't find that logic convincing.
        drawkward 2y ago
        Your reasoning is also based on nothing beyond your own speculation.
        dialup_sounds 2y ago
        no u a) Compensating for missing location metadata is a valid feature for a photo library. Peer competitor Google Photos also implements location estimation from landmarks. b) The sizes of contemporary general vision models and the size of the vector database for matching potentially millions of landmarks suggest that this is not suitable for running on-device. c) Apple's entire strategy is to do cloud computation without private data, so it stands to reason that they believe they're not using private data.
  - foldr 2y ago
    Apple turning a feature on by default can only possibly be a conspiracy to surreptitiously obtain training data from people’s photos? It couldn’t just be that they think most people will want the feature? It’s one thing to argue that Apple is doing this for nefarious reasons, but to suggest that this is somehow the only conceivable option is a bit nuts.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      >Apple turning a feature on by default can only possibly be a conspiracy to surreptitiously obtain training data from people’s photos? Apple-scale companies have done far worse. It is hardly a "conspiracy" to allege Apple behaves like other companies of its ilk. >It couldn’t just be that they think most people will want the feature? Apple doesn't care what the end user thinks. "A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them" -Steve Jobs >only conceivable option is a bit nuts. I am merely suggesting it as the most likely option, not the only option.
      - foldr 2y ago
        I think it's technically impossible for Apple to get training data from this due to the encryption. In which case it's not a likely option at all.
        drawkward 2y ago
        The landmark tagging models are obviously trained on something. Apple still benefits from my involuntary participation.
        foldr 2y ago
        They’re not obviously trained on encrypted data that Apple can’t decrypt.

lapcat 2y ago

"We" don't automatically, naively assume that a brand new feature, which has undergone no external validation, that uploads data/metadata from your personal, private photos library without your foreknowledge or consent, is "perfect".

diggan 2y ago

> So, why are we mad about this? Not everyone wants the software/OSes we run to automatically send data elsewhere. I bought the damn device, I own it, yet somehow it/the company decides that some things it comes across on it, can be sent to the company? No thank you, I prefer consensual computing. > with no downsides for the user No downsides for you, with your requirements/use cases. If the user has a requirement of "Doesn't send anything to anyone without consent", then this is obviously a downside.

helpfulContrib 2y ago
>Not everyone wants the software/OSes we run to automatically send data elsewhere. I personally find it offensive when a mega-corp makes the assumption that my connection to the Internet is available for them to build for-profit services without giving me sufficient agency. The cant-disable-Wifi-safely dark pattern is bad enough. But turning me into a data harvester for their million-dollar services, without even thinking about giving me a cut? No thanks. Alas, these anti-patterns have become a norm by way of ignorance, and its not getting better.

bogdan 2y ago

The question should be "why are you not mad about this?".

dialup_sounds 2y ago
I'm not mad about this because I use Google Photos, which has been doing the same thing for the last two years without people on the internet telling me to be mad about it.
- bogdan 2y ago
  Using Google photos was your own choice. If your default browser decides tomorrow to opt you in to mine crypto, I'll wager you would be unhappy.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    Not sure what you mean. Google Photos is the default on every smartphone I've ever owned and this setting has been on by default as long as it has existed. You could just as easily say "Using Apple Photos was your own choice" and get shouted down. The point is that outrage isn't automatic. Not everyone is going to be equally mad about a check box.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      People aren't complaining that Apple Photos is installed by default. They're complaining that it's sending data up to Apple by default. You have to explicitly opt in to Google Photos backing up your photos to the cloud. That setting is not on by default.
- ryandvm 2y ago
  Same. But honestly with all the "I pay extra for Apple because privacy" posts around here, I kind of expect better from them. Whereas everybody pretty much knows that if you dance with Google, they're going to be looking down your top...

cudgy 2y ago

Ok. Maybe Apple won’t mind running my executable and letting it send sensitive data to my server?