I searched the CVE and saw dozens of "One Character Flaw" articles.

I wonder who came up with that angle.

It appears journalists bit on that phrase for clickbait. It got an article here, eh?

At least for Debian if you're current it hasn't been a concern for months, going by the version numbers. So not actually news, actionable, or interesting.

Never fear, my actual expectations are low.

You mean that after Germany declared war on you, you joined the fight rather then surrendering.

and in the usa cutting health insurance paper work BS will save an lot more time

The subconscious has entered the chat. But... quietly.

Anyway that's nonsense. Attention is single-subject. Consciousness is not, not even close.

Those aren't cameras linked directly to a social network. They're CCTV sent back home if anything. Sometimes only a low-res stream is sent, sometimes nothing.

No one with even two brain cells to rub together thinks they can teach anything to dogshit stupid denialists.

The DMA means that they are limited in their ability to build systems that favor Apple-provided services over other companies' services. And Siri is a service. So unless they want to allow native Google Assistant, Alexa, etc. alongside Siri, complete with the same level of access to user content, they can't roll it out in Europe. Creating an infrastructure for making that possible while protecting user privacy is genuinely hard.

This is not to say that Apple shouldn't be pressured to do so, but at the same time, I understand why they don't want to do so, and I'm not convinced that there's enough societal or individual consumer benefit from competition in that area to warrant the technical overhead. The EU really should have granted them an exception for this.

What I would like to see is for the EU to force Apple to open their devices up to other companies competing against iCloud. There are potentially *huge* consumer benefits from doing so, and unlike Siri (which has to tightly integrate with on-device content in potentially intrusive ways, which requires continuous microphone access, which has major performance/battery life risk, etc.), there is really no good reason not to demand competition being possible for cloud storage and cloud backup.

Partially false. The functions you talk about are specific to select apps which have implemented them. That's all good and fine if you lock down your phone so that the only thing your kid can do is use iMessage or Facetime, but as soon as you want to use WhatsApp, Messenger, a different camera app, or god forbid, the "I send nudes to my friends" app of choice: Snapchat, those settings do fuck all.

This will require a per app functionality. Simply getting your kid an iPhone isn't enough.

What you can do is provide trained on-device models that apps like WhatsApp can use to recognize whether they need to flag content, and flags to indicate whether the user is a minor whose content should be checked by that model.

But yeah, global enforcement of viewing naked pictures is impossible, and global enforcement of taking naked pictures is also impossible unless you don't provide direct access to the camera (which would break a whole lot of apps in fundamental ways).

Not really. This functionality Apple has depends on software makers to implement it and support it. Ticking the little button makes Apple apps work, great for Facetime, or iMessages, but that's about it. Kids sending and receiving nudes via Snapchat will still be able to do so. Meta conclusively stated it will not support functionality that allows external scanning of messages in WhatsApp or Messenger, including Communication Safety. The camera app may analyse the image for nudes, but literally every other camera app that provides RAW access will not.

So no what Apple has here does not at all meet the fantasy requirements the UK government wants to will into existance.

Having a no-photo phone option would be great for military contractors, who often work where cameras aren't allowed. And while having a camera with me all the time is kind of neat at some level, I also recognize that it has been psychologically unhealthy for a lot of young people — particularly those with body image problems. So requiring cell phone makers to offer camera-free options would actually make a lot of sense. Nudity is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to teens' use of camera phones.

And it would be way, way easier to remove the camera from a phone than to reliably recognize nude photos on a kid's device in a way that protects privacy reliably. It would also shift the decision to the time of purchase, where parents could decide whether their kids' phones should have cameras, rather than being a bloated, complex piece of software that takes up storage on everyone's devices for a feature that might be used on only a small percentage of devices.

So in every way, that seems like a smarter way to solve the problem, and also a much less narrowly focused solution that solves a bunch of other problems at the same time.

Food for thought.

Less "I'm taking my toys and going home" and more "I don't think I have toys we can use to play this game."

Make no mistake many empty threats are empty, but this problem has a virtually unworkable solution. You're now talking about fundamentally re-writing OS level APIs in an incompatible way. You want the OS to curate and control the camera image? Great you've just completely broken RAW camera access used by countless apps. Want to prevent the sharing of images? Great, now you've broken the security model that allows applications to isolate their content.

This is not a case of "won't" it's one of the situations where it actually may simply not be possible.

And if you are a phone manufacturer and you tell them, "Our plan is to ignore your country until the next election, when your government will probably go away anyway," what then? Or if the answer is, "We can either keep England or California, and we choose California," what then?

Something like what they are asking for has to be done in a way that protects privacy all around, including, potentially, privacy of the minor from excessive intrusion by the parents, so you would have to allow an option for the kid to send the content to parents for approval.

For live photographs, that permission would have to be requested by the kid, and the content stored on device, but sequestered in such a way that the kid can't access it without parental approval. Otherwise, if you don't allow the photo to be taken at all, you wouldn't be able to have your kid take photos of art in museums without unlocking their devices (which would defeat the protection purposes), and if the phone automatically sends it for approval (rather than manually), you'd run the risk of kids' selfie porn getting automatically sent to their parents, making their parents potentially legally liable (not to mention probably psychologically scarred).

And all of this has to be done in such a way that none of the data can leave the device for any reason, under any circumstances, without the explicit permission of the owner of the device. That also means zero automatic reporting to anyone that content was flagged at all, because of the risk of such flagging triggering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of the young people by others with access to those reports (e.g. pervy local law enforcement having a report of who all the bad girls are, or worse, getting access to the photos).

More importantly, this ideally should be done such in a way that it would be technically infeasible to comply with any future law mandating automatic reporting. And this is the truly hard part, because I have no idea how you'd pull that off. Mitigating the risk of future government overreach is actually the hardest aspect of this sort of detection from a privacy perspective, and given how many government officials are frothing at the mouth, breathlessly demanding such privacy violations, it's easy to see why such protection is so important.

Doing this right is potentially challenging to get right, and there are a lot of sharp edges. Worse, those sharp edges could cause regulatory problems in other countries, and because cell phones don't stay in one place, that can be a nasty problem.

Give them a ten-year implementation deadline with an eight-year design deadline. To be blunt, if England wanted this in six months, they should have asked in 2016.

So funny story about this. My friend currently has a broken leg. We often send silly joke AI generated images to each other, so to cheer her up I fired up Nano Banana Pro with the prompt: "Draw a picture of this person laying on the hospital bed with her left leg in a cast. She is wearing a hospital gown. The left leg is elevated. She is surrounded by racoons [her favourite animal], and one is giving her a cuddle to make her feel better. The scene is in a recovery room, well lit with light coming through the window, and everything in focus."

It did a 50% brilliant job. Generated 4 images. Racoons looked amazing. Got a good facial expression of someone who was sad (great improvisation from the prompt that something is trying to make her feel better). It really nailed everything in 2 images. ...

The other 2 images had the right leg in a cast.

I went down a long rabbit hole, tried to see if prompts like "camera right" "left leg of the person" "leg closest to the left side of the bed" NOTHING WORKED. AI screwed up the left vs right about half the time.

Do not let AI pick which of your legs to cut off.