[HN Gopher] Is Apple checking images we view in the Finder? ___________________________________________________________________ Is Apple checking images we view in the Finder? Author : tagawa Score : 183 points Date : 2023-01-21 19:06 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (eclecticlight.co) (TXT) w3m dump (eclecticlight.co) | simonCGN wrote: | I suppose you should do it the other way round: there is a | rumour, you see if it is true rather than assuming it is true and | try to find evidence if it is true. | bboygravity wrote: | What if there's no way to find out if it's true? | yreg wrote: | Then assume it is true when making security decisions, but | don't pretend it is true when talking about it in | discussions. (imo.) | hbarka wrote: | I recognize the author's use of Scapple for the flowchart | diagram. One of my favorite visual mapping apps appropriated from | the writing, not techie, community. | gernb wrote: | I read that as some creative way to use Scrapple for diagrams | and went to check out what it was. Imagine my disappointment | that it was just some poorly named software and not actually | diagrams made from scrapple | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapple | hbarka wrote: | Yup, it's Scapple unlike Scrapple. A strange word without | history. Let me add a plug for them (Literature and Latte): | https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scapple/overview | | They also have another amazing app called Scrivener, made for | writers and novelists, but can hold its own against other | note-taking apps. | jsz0 wrote: | Probably untrue but the general trend of Apple throwing in the | towel on privacy has made me start seriously thinking about the | logistics of moving away from macOS in the near future. I know | it's going to be super unpleasant because I've been a 20+ year | macOS snob and it's an integral part of how I get any work done. | Making a reluctant change is so difficult. I almost hope Apple | makes some terribly egregious changes to macOS that will make it | easier for me to cut it loose and move on. | [deleted] | tomxor wrote: | Baby steps... maybe start with dual booting, or a VM, over time | you get more and more comfortable as you find the bits you need | on Linux or whatever. | | You will probably never find a replacement for everything, but | eventually you get to a threshold where the "Apple Hates Me" | vibes > "Not quite everything I want", then you have somewhere | to go when you flip the table... You will probably still hate | it initially, but the nice thing is that you can work on it, | making it into what you want, and unlike with Apple or MS you | can make progress... it will stay how you put it, because the | authors of the software are not working against you. i.e it | gets more comfortable over time, and less of a battle over | time. | | Admittedly how easy this is, is highly subjective, e.g if you | are a media person then it's going to be painful whatever | platform you head to (although I hear audio and video editing | alternatives are getting better). | indymike wrote: | I've unplugged as much as I can from both Windows and MacOS. I | still have to carry a Mac because of Xcode (and mobile | development), Affinity (for design) and from time to time, MS | Office (usually to deal with some ancient VBA code). The daily | driver is just an LG Gram with Kubuntu, and here's the | difference: | | Command line: Linux wins by a mile. GNU gettext has better tab | completion (i.e. it will complete parameters and paths). If you | work with Linux servers, it's nice to have the same directory | structure... and while brew is nothing short of amazing, | package management on Linux (deb, rpm, pacman, etc...) is still | the best. | | Design: A lot of tools have moved to the cloud (i.e. Figma and | Canva are getting better) but pro grade design software like | Affinity Designer (or Adobe stuff) is still the best, | especially if print shops are involved. If Serif ports Affinity | to Linux, I will buy it for every machine at my company just to | say thanks. | | Video: Davinci and OSB run extremely well on Linux so life is | good :-) | | Development: Honestly everything is better on Linux... but no | Xcode, which is required to distribute to the App Store. Xcode | is a nice IDE, but most of the work I do is in JetBrains IDE | (GoLand, PyCharm, WebStorm... and occasionally C Lion). | | On the hardware front, Apple still makes great hardware, but | some of the PC manufacturers are making great machines, too | (LG, Lenovo, Dell). I'm particularly happy with LG's Gram 17" | which has a giant screen and is an ounce or so heavier than a | 13" MacBook Air. The M1 and M2 are fast, but a modern i7 or | better is plenty fast and you can get one with 32GB for cheap. | golem14 wrote: | Maybe today. What does it matter when apple can change their | policy anytime the feel like it? Maybe they can dynamically turn | things on and off. | JayGuerette wrote: | Apple isn't creating neural hashes for CSAM detection, as they'd | have to be in possession of source material to create them, so | they're getting them from someone else. Since it's | indistinguishable in it's hash form, when the supplier becomes | interested in looking for something else, nobody will ever know. | yreg wrote: | >so they're getting them from someone else | | Is there any evidence they even do neural hash CSAM detection? | echelon wrote: | Do not let Apple off the hook. This must be removed. | | This functionality _will_ be used in other global jurisdictions | to clamp down on freedom. In a world where we cede more control | and increasingly subjugate ourselves, it 's only a matter of | time before it's used against us too. | | Say no to monitoring. | brookst wrote: | So the thing the article concludes isn't being done, must be | removed? | echelon wrote: | Maybe that's the case. We should be vigilant and treat the | concern with utmost seriousness. | | Once upon a time, Apple announced they would do this. We | can't ever let them. | brookst wrote: | The suppliers are well documented and it takes two suppliers | agreeing on the same neural hash. | | So, when the US center for missing and exploited children | decides to collide with the Japanese equivalent to detect IDK | what, yea, you wouldn't know. Assuming those agencies don't | operate with transparency. | rurp wrote: | Requiring two suppliers to agree is simply the current | policy. I think the GPs concern is that Apple's policies can | change without warning or notice. That seems like a pretty | valid concern to me, which Apple has zero interesting in | mollifying. | User23 wrote: | If you upload your data to a server that server's owners can do | whatever they want with it. How do people still not get this? | josephcsible wrote: | Distinguish between choosing to upload your data to a server | vs. working with data on your local hard drive without air- | gapping your computer first. | yreg wrote: | This article is not about people uploading data to a server | intentionally, so I don't see the connection. Who are the | people who 'still don't get this'? | cyanydeez wrote: | If apples not building an AI behind each of their users, sell | your stock now. | lamontcg wrote: | What happens if we just delete mediaanalysisd? I really don't | need visual search algorithms using Apple's cloud servers. | CharlesW wrote: | You can also just turn off Siri Suggestions: | https://eclecticlight.co/2022/04/08/how-to-enable-use-and-fi... | alin23 wrote: | There's also a follow up to that with more findings here: | https://eclecticlight.co/2023/01/20/demonstrating-causal-con... | [deleted] | zwilliamson wrote: | Does anyone have a list of Apple urls that we can block via | something like pi hole? | | On a side note, I'm actively evaluating options to replace my | aging MacBook. Anyone have a System76 laptop? | oneplane wrote: | Apple does: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210060 | | But as others have written: this won't result in what you think | it results in. | int_19h wrote: | If you're looking for a Linux laptop specifically, take a look | at StarLabs. | | https://us.starlabs.systems/ | tagawa wrote: | Spoiler alert: | | "There is no evidence that local images on a Mac have identifiers | computed and uploaded to Apple's servers when viewed in Finder | windows." | cookie_monsta wrote: | So, Betteridge's Law? | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headline... | b3morales wrote: | Sort of, but this article seems to be specifically a response | to a recent blog post that said that the answer was "Yes": | https://sneak.berlin/20230115/macos-scans-your-local- | files-n... | IndySun wrote: | Thank you. I much prefer Sneaks stance on Apple than | eclectic light's. Both post enough useful public | information to remind people that Apple are not as | different to other giants in underhand software tech | shenanigans. Eclectic often make us aware of Apple updating | software without permission, which is bad enough, and | commonly known on this forum. But Sneak will present | reasons why Apple users should not become complacent, and | for that I am grateful. | acdha wrote: | The problem is that Sneak tends towards conspiratorial | thinking so you need to read posts through the lens of | separating what's factually established from what | hypothetically could be done in the future. | poszlem wrote: | The phrase 'there is no evidence' can be interpreted in two | ways, one being that it is highly likely but unproven, and the | other being that it has been disproven and should not be | believed. | | I'm afraid we are still in the first version territory given | what we know about big tech and Apple's recent behaviour. | runjake wrote: | Caveat: | | "Images viewed in apps supporting VLU have neural hashes | computed, and those are uploaded to Apple's servers to perform | look up and return its results to the user, as previously | detailed[1]." (but not for CASM reasons) | | 1. https://eclecticlight.co/2022/03/25/how-visual-look-up- | works... | randyrand wrote: | what is VLU? | MBCook wrote: | Visual look up. I believe it's the thing where Apple will | tell you if something is a tree or a plant or a dog or | whatever. And you can click on it and it hopefully tells | you what kind like lab vs poodle vs Great Dane. | SkyMarshal wrote: | iOS 15+ Visual Lookup: | https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/visual-identify- | objec... | btown wrote: | A bit hard to believe that VLU's NeuralHashes aren't _also_ | passed through CSAM detection, when NeuralHashes were first | announced to the world in the context of CSAM detection: | https://www.apple.com/child- | safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni... | | That said, to reiterate the OP, there's no evidence that VLU | executes when using Finder or QuickLook alone. | mftb wrote: | Are you sure? Because in a prior article on the same source | your parent linked it would appear that it is being used | with QuickLook[0]. | | "While VLU is taking place, the image being looked up is | opened in the floating window of a QuickLook preview." | | [0]https://eclecticlight.co/2022/03/23/how-visual-look-up- | works... | btown wrote: | Hmm, there is some ambiguity in the author's writing | style. I interpreted what you quoted above as "if you are | in Safari.app or Preview.app and activate VLU explicitly, | it displays the image in a QuickLook window." The author | does say in https://eclecticlight.co/2023/01/18/is-apple- | checking-images... that: | | > Although the original description given was 'Finder | browsing', for some that might include the display of | images as QuickLook Previews, by selecting the image and | pressing the Spacebar... [The process triggered from | this] is consistent with the briefer task used in Live | Text, and quite different from VLU. There is thus no | evidence of the generation of neural hashes or any search | query by PegasusKit typical of the later stages of VLU... | | > Local images that are viewed in QuickLook Preview | undergo normal analysis for Live Text, and text | recognition where possible, but that doesn't generate | identifiers that could be uploaded to Apple's servers. | mftb wrote: | Understood. My own personal take-away, is that even with | all the digging those folks have done it is not possible | to know what Apple is actually doing. Which kind of | reinforces your original point in the comment that I was | responding to. | hnaccy wrote: | Is there any way to disable VLU? | | It sounds like anytime I open an image in Preview it sends | hashes to apple? | runjake wrote: | FTA: | | "VLU can be disabled by disabling Siri Suggestions in | System Settings > Siri & Spotlight, as previously | explained[1]." | | 1. https://eclecticlight.co/2022/04/08/how-to-enable-use- | and-fi... | jjcon wrote: | For the record I don't believe Apple is collecting that info - | having said that I think the biggest issue with Apple is that | it is not possible to fully audit and determine what they | collect and what they don't. Just because they aren't | constantly sending hashes over the internet after viewing each | photo in finder doesn't mean that similar data isn't collected | at all over the many encrypted connections apple maintains with | their servers and Mac computers. | | It would be colossally stupid for them to betray user trust in | that way as it would almost certainly come out eventually, but | that doesn't change the trust problem they ultimately do have. | marcosdumay wrote: | > It would be colossally stupid for them to betray user trust | in that way | | Yes. Unless, of course somebody is pointing a gun to their | heads and forcing them, like the US government was already | caught doing to other companies. | slenk wrote: | Interesting. Do you have any more info I could read | regarding that. | amelius wrote: | It's freaking annoying that you can't use an Apple device | without being connected to Apple. | | There should be a law against that sort of thing, for | hardware that you fully paid for. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I agree, that's why I don't buy them. All of my computers | are 9+ years old and run fully up to date Linux or Windows. | htag wrote: | Wow! Did you know you can run Linux on modern hardware? | It's faster that way, and doesn't change the amount of | telemetry reported. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Modern hardware has backdoors that can't be disabled. | michaelmrose wrote: | Is there any proof that such potential backdoors are | practical and not theoretical? Have you considered non | x86 hardware. If you were made of money for example Talos | II or other more reasonable priced options? | oneplane wrote: | So does older hardware, nothing was gained here. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Why? They all still accomplish what I need them to. | hgsgm wrote: | Modern hardware isn't much faster. | htag wrote: | 2023 hardware is much faster than 2014 hardware. | kitsunesoba wrote: | So much so that 2023 laptops often trounce 2014 desktops, | with a fraction of the power budget and cooling capacity. | | It was true that power stagnated for a long time but it's | finally back on the upturn. | frankfrankfrank wrote: | I'm not sure what would make you think that Windows is | even in the slightest better. | | In fact it is proven that not only is Microsoft deeply in | bed with the whole US Government, but the amount of | vulnerabilities and flaws and outright back doors that | have been publicly exposed in Windows is wildly larger. | | I don't even understand this immense focus on criticizing | Apple, as valid as it is, when people use Android and | Windows and Google services that are all shown as clear | hangar door sized vulnerabilities. | | It really kind of boggles my mind. Apple is constantly | being out under pressure by the government and is | constantly pushing increasing security and privacy | features, as imperfect as they may be, but that is in | comparison to Windows and Android, folks. | mulmen wrote: | The CSAM thing did irreparable damage to Apple's | reputation. We foolishly trusted them as benevolent | dictators of the walled garden. They demonstrated why | that can't work. Everyone is fallible, nobody deserves | absolute trust. | kbf wrote: | They announced their plans, people objected and they | listened. I don't get what the problem is? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I use Linux but have a barebones Windows 10 install for | one stupid stressful game that doesn't work on Linux due | to anticheat. I audibly groan when rebooting to Windows | to play. | | With that said I can still use Windows without a | Microsoft account. | CharlesW wrote: | > _With that said I can still use Windows without a | Microsoft account._ | | It sounds like you may not realize that you have never | needed an Apple account (i.e. an Apple ID, which might | call an "iCloud account") to use macOS. No magic tricks | are required, although some Apple services will naturally | not be avaiable. | daf203723087 wrote: | > With that said I can still use Windows without a | Microsoft account. | | Only because you are a power-user and know the magic | trick to perform when installing Windows to avoid signing | in with a Microsoft account. | Someone wrote: | > There should be a law against that sort of thing, for | hardware that you fully paid for. | | So, if Apple were to say you didn't fully pay for the | hardware, it would be OK? | themitigating wrote: | I don't think more government regulation for such a | specific reason is a good idea. Just don't buy their | products. | oneplane wrote: | Do you really think the general consumer knows about any | technical details of the products they buy, and if they | did, they would care enough to chose the less-comfortable | option for no perceived gain? This almost never works, | and I think you know that. | themitigating wrote: | Do you really think the general consumer knows any | medical details of the vaccines they buy? Should we | regulate misinformation? | alwayslikethis wrote: | At some point this "voting with your wallet" argument | gets ridiculous. How realistic is going through life | without one of these slaveware devices? (defining | slaveware as hardware or software that treats you as a | slave to the corporation that made it) Most people are | coerced to using it, not even knowing the difference, | forcing you to use the slaveware as well. | EMIRELADERO wrote: | While not specifically that, the EU's Digital Markets Act | is moving things in that direction. I recommend reading the | full text of the legislation, it has many gems. | dotancohen wrote: | > There should be a law against that sort of thing, for | hardware that you fully paid for. | | Why? That sounds like exactly the type of issue that the | market will fix, by buying from a different vendor. | oneplane wrote: | It seems the market isn't what you tink it is. At the | same time, people also don't understand that the issue | isn't what they think it is. | | There is a vocal minority on most of these things: | | - Powerusers and "learnt just enough to be dangerous" | users complain about products not being targeted towards | their wishes | | - Privacy alarmists don't like what they can't control | | - Commercial interests don't like having to pay for | things, but do like getting paid for their own things | | Technically all correct, but in practise this is nearly | all in the same bucket as fastfood, sugar, air pollution | etc. It's something that affects everyone, but it's much | easier to deny it, ignore it, and just go with the nice, | easy, comfortable, and profitable paths. | whiddershins wrote: | You can wipe it and install Linux and use the hardware you | paid for unencumbered. | | So do you mean use the software you paid for? (Fair) | | Or am I missing a nuance. | | Edit: Or are you referring to iDevices. | amelius wrote: | Running Linux on it is not the solution, as there is no | documentation. Volunteers have been reverse engineering | the GPU, but they still don't know whether their | assumptions are all correct. | | Also, is the Linux support actually official? Considering | the above, I think not. I can't vote with my wallet for a | company that has no clear map for the future, for my | particular usecases. | | Yes, iDevices are another problem. And yes, paying for | the software when you use only the hardware is a problem | too. | | Too many problems with this company. I honestly can't | understand why so many other hackers are happy being | tethered and parent-controlled by Apple. | cassianoleal wrote: | > I honestly can't understand why so many other hackers | are happy being tethered and parent-controlled by Apple. | | Obviously it varies from person to person. | | Some just don't care about this at all and/or don't | consider it an issue. | | Some are just really used to it, or invested in the | platforms, and don't want to waste time moving. | | Some will just find much worse experiences for their | taste anywhere else. | | There are likely other personas in this story, these are | just off the top of my head. | shanebellone wrote: | I haven't used Apple in 5-8 years. I prefer to build my | desktops and don't use my phone much, so Android is | sufficient. | | Frankly, I do not understand the disdain for Apple. They | built their stack. That should be admired. Also, it's one | ecosystem in the market. | | Don't like it? Buy something else. | amelius wrote: | Yes, fair, thanks for the reminder. | cassianoleal wrote: | > You can wipe it and install Linux and use the hardware | you paid for unencumbered. | | Not all the hardware, or at least not yet if you're on | Apple Silicon. | snazz wrote: | Asahi Linux works decently well on Apple silicon Macs | today. | Gigachad wrote: | Apple doesn't place any restrictions on doing this, in | fact they have set it all up to make install Linux as | convenient as possible without directly adding drivers to | Linux. | | Mainline Linux can now run all the critical features of | apple silicon laptops and the remaining stuff like power | management is really just waiting on someone to work out | what the best way to modify Linux to support it would be. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | "For the record I don't believe Apple is collecting that info | - having said that I think the biggest issue with Apple is | that it is not possible to fully audit and determine what | they collect and what they don't." | | This begs the question why is it not possible. I monitor the | traffic on the computers I own which means I have sometimes | to decrypt traffic from applications and then re-encryot | before sending from the loopback to the local network I own | and then over the wire onto "the internet". I like to know | what data applications are sending or trying to send. I like | to have control over it. That's not unreasonable in the | slightest. | | Yet, in the "tech" company model of computer network use, the | computer owner is discouraged, e.g., scary browser warnings, | SSL errors, connection failures, etc., from placing any trust | in themselves. Instead it advocates, if not effectvely | mandates, placing trust (and fees, i.e., for "domain names") | in some other entity, e.g., Apple, other "Certificate | Authorities", etc. The mere act of questioning this model is | often attacked by "tech" workers commenting online. Watch it | happen in the replies. | | Under this model, it is as if the the computer and local | network owner does not also own the traffic. Who owns the | computer. Who owns the local network. Who own the data. Who | should be allowed to view it and control it. If anything, one | would think the computer and network owner should be allowed | to prevent _any_ third party, including Apple, if they so | choose, from initiating remote connections and sending data | from the computer owner 's computer. | | Even after purchase Apple believes it is entitled to collect | data from someone else's computer, over someone else's | network. And it also believes no computer purchaser ever has | an interest in seeing what data is being collected, by | monitoring the traffic, let alone an interest in preventing | these connections. There is no option provided to globally | disable all phoning home to Apple, to indicate "No, thank | you." | | It was not always like this, folks. I owned older Apple | computers that never made such assumptions. The computer | belonged to the purchaser. Generally, firewalls were not used | to block software pre-installed on the computer by Apple. The | so-called "tech industry" has moved the needle and tried to | normalise what is IMHO an entirely different scenario. | charcircuit wrote: | >Even after purchase Apple believes it is entitled to | collect data from someone else's computer, over someone | else's network. | | They are collecting data on how their software in used. | Also this article is talking about a visual search feature | that uses Apple's servers to search for things in your | images. Apple is just as much entitiled to do this as a | multiplayer game connecting to game servers. You choose to | use the software and you choose to permit it onto your | network. | | >e.g., scary browser warnings, SSL errors, connection | failures, etc., from placing any trust in themselves | | These tech companies are trying to improve the security of | their ecosystem. TLS is paramount in them modern world to | protect people from MitM attacks. | oneplane wrote: | > I like to know what data applications are sending or | trying to send | | Good luck with that. Unless you are running a Commodore 64 | it is unlikely that a single person can understand, inspect | and make decisions on modern operating systems or even | individual applications. | | There was a small window in which you had the option to use | your computer as a 'digital typewriter' and 'sometimes send | a fax', but expected and supplied functionality this day | and age relies on many small components being heavily | interconnected, much in the same way that social circles | are interconnected, social networks (the digital variant) | are based on critical mass (not technical prowess, legal | status or privacy) and the amount of people that have | narrow/well-defined use cases for their computers are at an | all-time low making them less and less significant to cater | to. | | If you had a Apple computer with 10.3 or newer, this was | the norm. If you had macOS 9 with iTools, it was the norm | as well (for a bit until it got dropped in favour of | MobileMe). | | The old times weren't better, just different (and much less | feature-rich). Great for a few power users, bad for | everyone else. | stoned wrote: | Eh... it depends on what you think is good and bad. It's | not clear to me that surveillance capitalism will be a | long term good. Gadgets and social media are fun, but | digital feudalism will be (is?) a lot less fun and | rewarding. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | > Good luck with that. Unless you are running a Commodore | 64 it is unlikely that a single person can understand, | inspect and make decisions on modern operating systems or | even individual applications. | | This is defeatist, and ignores the second-order | advantages of Free and Open Source software. You don't | need a Commodore 64, you need a decent GNU/Linux distro. | | In practice, it's far less common for FOSS to contain | code that works against the user's interests, as the | vendor/developer has no veil of ambiguity and no | deniability. Only one person needs to find the | troublesome code, and they can make the rest of us aware. | Everyone knows this, so FOSS malware is rarely released | in the first place. | | FOSS isn't a silver bullet (see Firefox's telemetry) but | it's not the case that there's nothing you can do but use | user-hostile proprietary software for everything. | cycomanic wrote: | I don't know how someone can make such a detailed analysis and | apparently not understand the limitations of the same analysis. | How can such a broad statement be posted otherwise? | | There could be all sorts of explanations why a connection might | not have shown up in their analysis, rate limiting, batch | upload, regional settings. It would have been much better to | say: "in my tests I could observe any evidence..." or something | similar. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> Basing claims on the inference that two events might be | connected, without understanding the nature of either, is | reckless if not malicious._ | | It can easily happen, though. I did it yesterday, with a bank, | concerning a credit card number that had been purloined. It was | unwise, and reckless, and I ended up owning it, and apologizing | (plus, I learned about a trigger that I need to watch out for). | | That said, just because something "easily happens," does not make | it OK. We can "easily" get homicidally angry, and it would be A | Bad Thing, if we acted on our impulses. | | A mark of my personal maturity, is grounding these impulses, | before they make it to the outside. When I fail (like yesterday), | I get embarrassed. | gockflaps wrote: | It's refreshing to see someone actually take the time to do some | proper analysis on this, rather than simply assuming that Apple | are up to no good and getting angry about it based on nothing. | Nice work by the author, and a well-explained writeup. | etchalon wrote: | A great rebuttal and investigation into a topic that was raised | by a shallow alarmist last week. | ramesh31 wrote: | This ignores the possibility that the scan results could be | collected and uploaded at a later time, possibly obfuscated | within the payload of some other benign process. I fully accept | that the sum of engineering and thought by Apple is much smarter | than either myself or the average security researcher, and in an | adversarial situation such as this, it's far from an impossible | scenario. Ultimately, with a closed source OS, we will never | really know more than what Apple wants us to know. | duxup wrote: | Isn't that "possible" for any computer or device connected to | the internet? | | I feel like "possible" is doing a lot of work here that applies | everywhere. | djur wrote: | > scan results could be collected and uploaded at a later time | | The images could also be analyzed and uploaded by software | installed remotely on your computer overnight. If you actually | consider yourself to be in an "adversarial" relationship with | Apple you should not use their products -- they have | uncountable opportunities to attack you. | [deleted] | ok123456 wrote: | It's wild that you need a firewall just to stop OS features from | phoning home every file you preview on your computer. | MBCook wrote: | Right. Because preventing the computer from talking to Apple | where it finds out if there are updates or new malware | definitions in addition to the documented thing it's doing is a | much better option than turning off the option in settings. | handsclean wrote: | Yes, firewalls often prevent this from happening, waiting to | read about some new setting on HN does not. Firewalls also | aren't going to block legitimate traffic unless they're badly | configured. | acdha wrote: | You have to think about the problem in context: if abuse | were happening, which to be clear is not true, you couldn't | trust a computer made by the company running the program | you disagree with. They control the software stack and | network endpoints, so they could exempt their own services | from the local firewall and avoid a network firewall by | using something like their network update service to | receive queries. | pwdisswordfish9 wrote: | As if apple would have their services obey firewall | restrictions. | est31 wrote: | Or even VPNs... | https://www.macrumors.com/2022/10/13/ios-16-vpns-leak- | data-e... | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Or just turn off "Siri Suggestions" in System Settings as | stated in the article. | c22 wrote: | I'd probably stick with the firewall just to be safe, | thorough, and future-proofed... | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | Apple allows itself to bypass the OS firewall so you will | need something at the network level. | Xylakant wrote: | You'd need a network level firewall for that - the OS can | circumvent any firewall you run on your computer. That | would imply that you're unprotected once you leave your | home network. The firewall would also need to inspect all | network traffic, including TLS secured connections. | [deleted] | djur wrote: | Using a firewall to protect your privacy from the company | that designed the hardware and wrote the software for your | computer is kind of like putting on a raincoat before going | swimming. | ok123456 wrote: | Why do they deserve any trust when they're phoning home? | djur wrote: | Why do you have any less trust for what they're doing | with your data on their servers versus what they can | already do with it on yours? If you don't trust them to | have access to your data, you should not use their | hardware and you should not use their software. | scarface74 wrote: | The person you are replying to is saying that at some | level you have to trust someone and "open source" is not | the answer. | | There have been plenty of latent bugs in Linux that took | years to discover that could have led to information | extraction | ok123456 wrote: | "Every platform has RVEs eventually" is a pretty lazy | answer. | | The answer is to stop normalizing telemetry and data | exfiltration even if it's 'the good guys' doing it. It's | not your "cloud" therefore it's not your data. | scarface74 wrote: | So if you are not going to trust anyone are you going to | stop using computers? | djur wrote: | No, that's not what I'm saying. I think it's conceivable | that with a great deal of effort you could build an open | source system that is highly trustworthy. What I'm saying | is that the gradient between "highly trustworthy" and | "untrustworthy" is extremely steep. | | To use another analogy, someone using a firewall to keep | a MacBook from phoning home is like a person who invests | in a really high-quality lock on their jewelry box to | keep their housecleaner from stealing from them. | yreg wrote: | I believe the firewall is not supposed to be protection | against Apple doing an attack on you, but against them | collecting data because you forgot to change some setting | to opt out somewhere. | djur wrote: | If you don't trust Apple with your data, a firewall will | not protect you. They can collect data at any time and | have many options for extracting it from your computer. A | firewall will only really help with "above the table" | behavior. | yreg wrote: | That's what I said. | oneplane wrote: | You actually have to opt in to this, but most people do | because they don't care or understand what it is they are | doing. In some cases, data shared features have to be re- | opted-in during major OS upgrades (maybe because the | processes that process the data are divided differently | or using different API endpoints.. who knows). | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Well... macOS is hardly the worst IoT offender. Roku is | unbelievable. ;) Many good reasons to set up a Pi-Hole... | Helmut10001 wrote: | Just replaced my router with OPNsense and starting to get some | sense for all the egress traffic. | titzer wrote: | It's beginning to look like it wasn't a great move to become _so_ | dependent on _so much_ closed source software. "It's open | source" they cry. Yeah, system level stuff, just with some | closed-source barnacles attached that do god knows what, | stealthily, unaccountably, and yet brazen to a terrifying degree. | "Trust us". Hmmm. | squarefoot wrote: | Broadly speaking, if something is closed source and connected, it | phones home. Whether it can collect sensitive private data about | the user is just a matter of when. The sooner common users | realize that, the safer they can be in the future. Unfortunately, | spying on users is a well paid business, therefore even without | involving 3 letter government agencies and/or conspiracy | theories, we should expect every hardware/software manufacturer | to attempt to profit from that, if not because pretty much | everyone else in the field is doing the same already. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-21 23:00 UTC)