Signal and Meta (WhatsApp) don’t scan your messages. Apple’s actions have shown they are untrustworthy, and even if they’ve reversed this particular decision, compromising on principle has put authoritarians on notice they are open to compromise in the future, like the UK’s horrific Online Safety Bill.
Pointing out a few app vendors simply isn't impressive. Of course some app vendors can take a stand against mid-tier governments. It's great marketing for them, and the corporate risk isn't so high. It's the platform vendors which have much at stake.
And of the three big platform vendors, two of them already scan private photos for CSAM right now — Google and Microsoft. Yet nobody is outraged because nobody actually cares. There's no logical consistency. Google and Microsoft can implement scanning and there's no outrage. Apple went to great lengths to tell everyone exactly what they were proposing to do before they did it, and all the online people are outraged and calling Apple untrustworthy. Sure, whatever.
Neither Google nor Microsoft operate a secure messaging platform that matters (email, yes, but email security is a lost cause), unlike WhatsApp (and Facebook Messenger), iMessage, Telegram or Signal. I'm not giving Google & Microsoft a pass, they're just irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
The CSAM scanning Apple abandoned, ie the topic at hand, was for the cloud, like the one operated by Google or Microsoft. You switched the topic to secure messaging platforms, which are irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
Wholesale scanning of private data is unaaceptable, and the fact you engage in such mental gymnastics to justify it is a sign that everyone should be distrusting any platform by default. Simple as.
Your first sentence makes no sense. Perhaps you meant to say: "Wholesale scanning of private data is unacceptable therefore everyone should be distrusting any platform by default." That's a statement I would agree with.
I reject the claim of "mental gymnastics" as a meme bereft of substance, and specifically in this instance, as an unproven hypothesis. But even if I granted the inference, I don't see how overly elaborate argumentation could have any explanatory power for the trustworthiness (or otherwise) of major platforms.
I'm curious, why do you think I'm advocating trust in any platform? And I'm curious why you think that I have any concern one way or another for an "exodus" from any platform?
Really, I'm just replying to say that while I think I understand the gist of the tone of your reply, I don't actually understand anything you wrote. And my hope is that you can clarify, because — and I say this with all sincerity — I really am genuinely curious.
