To What, though?

This is the problem I'm currently struggling with.

I could go to Android, which is relatively good but still run by Google (one of the most data-hungry corporations around). I kind of want the Z Flip 3, but not if it's running the kind of operating system that thinks of me as a data source and not a customer.

I could go to linux phones, execpt no, they have absolutely no concept of competence in any form, and frequently die with less than two hours of battery life under their belts.

I might decide to root/jailbreak, but that's the kind of resistance that invites malicious intruders to take advantage of the broken security models of our duopolist platform economics to sell my data to the highest bidder.

This isn't a rhetorical position: what do I do in this scenario? I want to leave Apple, but I can't find a good alternative and iMessage might be the dollar-store adhesive keeping me to the lesser of two evils.

You could stop buying iStuff on principle otherwise they'll just continue with this crap.

As for alternatives, anything would do. Android doesn't do client side scanning of files since that's your chief concern. If you want more you can always root and play around.

> I want to leave Apple, but I can't find a good alternative and iMessage might be the dollar-store adhesive keeping me to the lesser of two evils.

Can't learn unless you try things.

I for one am happy with stock android and signal/telegram/whatsapp/sms.

I have freedom to root/modify as much as I want, I'm not forced to accept arbitrary company policies.

> You could stop buying iStuff on principle otherwise they'll just continue with this crap.

I very much doubt losing a handful of sales from angry nerds will change that.

if that handful turns into a lot more they will care.

Hearing normal folk asking "will I get in trouble for photos of my baby" kind of shows its not just a bunch of angry nerds. Angry nerds will just put gas on fire with simple "yes" answers.

"will I get in trouble for photos of my baby"

This is a reasonable question, and absolutely something people should wonder about.

> simple "yes" answers.

This is an outright lie. The only honest answer is no.

Keep doing that and angry nerds will end up looking like tinfoil hat wearers and will lose any influence on future civil liberties.

> This is an outright lie. The only honest answer is no.

Are you sure about that?, I'm not... And all the news so far reinforces that oppinion...

Getting falsely accused of something like this will ruin you even if in the end you win.

Here's apple fucking up human review and destroying a teens life https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/29/apple_sis_lawsuit/

Imagine that with CSAM... Perceptual filter there seems pretty poor in terms of collision resistance

>> This is an outright lie. The only honest answer is no.

> Are you sure about that?,

Yes.

> I'm not... And all the news so far reinforces that oppinion...

There are no news articles that explain how anyone will be falsely accused for having pictures of their own baby.

> Perceptual filter there seems pretty poor > in terms of collision resistance

I don’t think you know anything about how poor the filter is. What is the false positive rate on randomly selected photos?

The system is even resistant against intentionally created false positives.

Here is the relevant paragraph from Apple’s documentation:

“as an additional safeguard, the visual derivatives themselves are matched to the known CSAM database by a second, independent perceptual hash. This independent hash is chosen to reject the unlikely possi- bility that the match threshold was exceeded due to non-CSAM images that were ad- versarially perturbed to cause false NeuralHash matches against the on-device en- crypted CSAM database. If the CSAM finding is confirmed by this independent hash, the visual derivatives are provided to Apple human reviewers for final confirmation.”

https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Security_Threat_Model...

...

Umm... hash collisions that everyone keeps warning about is not enough?, all the discussions so far, I'll just go ahead and assume your comment here is in bad faith.

> The system is even resistant against intentionally created false positives.

Famous last words... Here's one of the top posts for reddit.com/r/apple

https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/p930wu/i_wont_be_pos...

Here's a really high quality collision: https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX//issu...

Here's 2 totally different images off by a single BIT: https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX//issu...

Here's a dog and a kid colliding: https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX//issu...

It took a few days after extracting the model to show how flawed it is... Apple's only 'security' feature here was obscurity...

It's so broken the person doing analysis above stopped as Apple will only change the hash function to include his pictures as training data instead of fixing the whole system.

Are you still convinced?

Having a second 'perceptual' hash doesn't really add much value... I'm not an expert, here's a better view on why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28243031

Also funniest bit from that on how broken it is

"Finding a SHA1 collision took 22 years, and there are still no effective preimage attacks against it. Creating the NeuralHash collider took a single week."