Ask HN: If Apple integrated Time Machine with iCloud, would you use it?

xanaxagoras · 4 years ago

Big no. I stopped using iCloud after the CSAM debacle showed Apple is eager and willing to weaponize my device against me for the sole purpose of reporting the content of my private files to the federal government. Then I stopped using and sold my iPhone and Apple Watch. I haven't been able to get away from MacOS yet, and there's really no competition for the iPad so I still use both of these.

While Time Machine has languished and deteriorated, Arq Backup [1] is alive and well. Used with AWS Glacier it's practically free, aside from the 1 time cost of the software (in case anyone forgot - there used to be a paradigm where you could buy software for money and own it) and whatever you choose to pay for expedited restore from Glacier.

[1] https://www.arqbackup.com

voisin · 4 years ago

The fact that you pulled the chute on that much of the Apple ecosystem because of CSAM - which was client side - seems like an overreaction, no? And did I miss something or were they never using CSAM to report to government but rather to prevent further sharing?

This led you to selling your watch too? Crazy. I suggest not reading up on Android and privacy.

xanaxagoras · 4 years ago

I don't think so. Honestly if they had announced server side CSAM scanning I would have been fine with that and I would still be deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem.

It's a question of whose device it is. I paid $1000, it's in my pocket all day every day, it is mine and not theirs. I won't allow Apple to just run anything they want to on it, especially malware that is designed to do either exactly nothing or rat me out to the federal government.

You did miss something. CSAM reports were slated to be sent to the NCMEC, an "independent non profit" which for practical purposes is an arm of the FBI. It didn't sway me at all that the pushback made them scrap their plans. They took a clear position that they think they own the computer in my pocket, that they decide what runs on it, and I have no say whatsoever. Nor was I impressed at their alleged intention to only turn it on for iCloud users. In a slow boil one doesn't mind the lukewarm water.

The Apple Watch is completely useless without an iPhone. I will get off of all Apple products in the coming years. I suggest you read up on privacy ROMs - I don't run any of Google's spyware either.

shmoe · 4 years ago

Not to mention Google's been doing CSAM scans _in the cloud_ for years. Apple's approach was sensible and likely would've lead to end to end backup encryption.. a shame the stupid, uninformed outcry about it has had this result.

cmckn · 4 years ago

There was a reporting mechanism. I still wouldn’t switch over it (literally every company storing loads of data does this, but it’s usually server-side and less carefully thought-out). At the end of the day, you have to consider the fact that child abuse is a thing that happens, a lot. Facebook found like 20 million instances of verified CSAM images sent on its service in a single year. I’m in support of privacy, but my right to privacy does not exist in a vacuum.

gjsman-1000 · 4 years ago

Apple’s CSAM scanning could be disabled by not using iCloud Photos… which scans server side anyway.

smoldesu · 4 years ago

If Apple stores a list of hashes that are on your device, it stands to reason that the US government (or Chinese government, depending on where you live) would have access to that list, no? With the existence of PRISM, adequate pressure from multinational surveillance organizations like FIVE EYES, and "the China problem", I see plenty of incentive for Apple to implement this system that's ripe for abuse.

Think about it; the NSA can profile you based on every image that you have stored on your device. Too many extremist eco-terrorism memes saved in your camera roll? You'll get added to a list. Stocking up on right-wing propaganda? They'll flag your device and keep tabs on you "just in case" so they have due process when they do subpoena Apple for the raw iCloud dump.

I'd like to think there's a silver lining to all this, but the whole thing reeks.

Dead Comment

oneplane · 4 years ago

Apple's CSAM runs on your device... While it could also run in the Cloud, that's not what the presented implementation was going to do.

At the same time, Google and Microsoft already have this CSAM in place, and when you run on GCP, AWS or Azure you are personally liable for CSAM so it's not like it suddenly goes away. Even with CMK and pre-transfer encryption you are still the one holding the CSAM bag.

Unless you are willing the reinvent every wheel yourself, there is little to be gained from not using an ecosystem. You should of course always retain a personally controlled backup.

josh2600 · 4 years ago

I often wonder what the world would be like if apple had gone through with it (I am definitely not advocating for it, but wondering what the trade offs would be on the other side of the rollout).

Specifically, I wonder if we would’ve gotten an end to end encrypted iCloud as a result of client side csam scanning.

Right now there’s absolutely no path to end to end encrypted cloud for google and apple. Someone new could try to do it but there would have to be some way to do csam scanning or you’d be violating strict liability. Something like what apple did, effectively client side tagging and server side cryptographically probabilistic scanning, seems like the only way to accomplish this while staying in line with the government asks.

The problem, of course, is that apple is working against a corpus that is hidden.

I’m not sure what the right answer here. It’s an intellectually interesting problem with a lot of policy wrinkles.

pseudalopex · 4 years ago

You mean if we would have end to end encryption for other iCloud data. The client side scanning system ruled out end to end encryption for photos.

Other companies have end to end encryption. Can you cite a case where a court found them liable for child pornography?

gjsman-1000 · 4 years ago

Heck, you think AWS doesn’t do their own CSAM scanning? Wow.

xanaxagoras · 4 years ago

They can scan my encrypted backups all day, what do I care?

samwillis · 4 years ago

Absolutely, without question.

For better or worse I’m a fully payed up member of the Apple ecosystem. I love that everything generally “just works” (maybe until It doesn’t…).

Currently use Arq with S3 but to be honest looking for something simpler. Tried BackBlaze years ago (could be 10 years ago) and found it slow and buggy, probably good now.

Would take an Apple online time machine warts and all.

I think fundamentally I believe that they would get the encryption and security around it correct, as in general they have a good track record with security and privacy.

jake_morrison · 4 years ago

I use Arq with Backblaze B2, which costs about 1/4 as much as S3.

https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html

cehrlich · 4 years ago

No, or at least not initially. With Apple's track record with online services I wouldn't trust them to not mess this up. I'd stay with BackBlaze for the time being and let others be the early adopters.

samwillis · 4 years ago

> With Apple's track record with online services I wouldn't trust them to not mess this up.

While I agree that their track record 5-10 years ago was poor with multiple false starts around iCloud/Me.com. I do think they have absolutely nailed their online services now, iCloud is brilliant and does everything that the market it’s targeted at wants (maybe except versioned backup).

WanderPanda · 4 years ago

If you discount the website icloud.com, yes, it is pretty decent.

yepthatsreality · 4 years ago

> (maybe except versioned backup).

And encryption.

bproctor · 4 years ago

I don't know what I'm missing, but I've tried to use Time Machine many times over the past decade and every time it's the same thing. After a few weeks, it forgets what it's doing and has to rebuild the backup from scratch.

jdlshore · 4 years ago

I don’t think it’s accurate to say they’ve let TM languish. They recently did a big update that allows it to work on AFPS-formatted drives that takes advantage of AFPS snapshots. And prior to that, changes to take advantage of AFPS snapshots on the source drives as well.

The UI hasn’t changed, but there have been big changes under the covers.

vanilla_nut · 4 years ago

I'm sure a lot of people would, though most of my friends and family have internet connections that would make uploading 50GB file diffs long, unreliable, and unpleasant (rural USA).

I would not. Honestly I'm still kind of mad that I can't automate iPhone backups to my local Time Machine setup.

milesward · 4 years ago

It's also a backup model that would benefit to a hilarious degree from deduplication...

oneplane · 4 years ago

Because local data is no longer a relevant matter for the consumer market from the perspective of the corporations. Your media is in the cloud, your communications are in the cloud and apps are re-downloadable. Of course all of this has the capability of being defective down the road or missing something, but so does local storage.

The endgame seems to be local cache, edge-retained warm storage and cloud-based bulk storage, all managed transparently.