That idea was scanning being carried out on devices not on their servers, and of course your device can access your data when they can't. They never actually implemented it because it may have created a different local device loophole. But they did introduce a option where images are scanned for likely nudity and blurred - but again local on device so no encryption weaknesses nor backdoors.
A nudity filter on itself can be something different with the condition it doesn't need to check online. But my whole point in this case it not about the technicalities, if their did went ahead with this if it started online it would have been a small step to switch it also to local in an later update.
But the main point is not to long ago i think it was in 2005 after terror attack in Manhattan Apple came under pressure from the FBI because they refused to give or help decrypting the Iphone of one of the offenders or help bypassing his password. So in the timespan off roughly 10 years they went from ''your data is your data'' to ''your data is now our data*'' *under certain conditions, but that exactly the thing, now they say child pornography's, terrorist etc. topics everyone can agree on are wrong. But if the technology is there do you really believe they are able to stop a certain goverment going after Januari 6 officials?
To decrypt you need the key or vast computing power. If Apple don't have the key they can't decrypt. If HM Gov. don't have the key in practice they can't decrypt. So when I'm the only person with the key no practical way for others to read my data.
If you can trust company supplying your hardware that is in fact true, however, considering Apple move from ''your data is your data'' to ''your data is our data*'' this is no longer the case.
Considering Apple already read and listens along(targeted advertisement feature'' they might as well be able to see your key if they comply with certain goverments.
And yes this is exactly why Huawei got banned in the US the actual or theoretical chance they would do this. I'm not in any way saying US goverment/NSA/Etc. is the pot calling the kettle black, and double standards are indeed a thing.
Details are very important when it comes to privacy and security.
Ian
Agreed but scrutinizing those providing your essential services even more important when it is about privacy, for the average user this is probably not important but those who need extreme security often use multiple phones, custom roms, will pay with cash as much as possible and will have plausible deniability on their devices. (for Windows that means for example that you have a other windows inside your windows, so that if you're forced to give passwords, you can given them the fake one. And yes this only works if you regularly use your fake os, otherwise the party forcing you will soon discover your last logged in time not adding up)
And other example is Nordvpn(a few years back) and how they provided log files to US courts they claimed where not there.(during sign up)
an other Example is the founder of ReiserFS how was convicted off murdering his wife but they never where able to search his computer properly as being the maker of the file system plausible deniability worked to the extent they couldn't prove he had given them the actual logins. (and he was convicted leaning on other evidence and i think a plea deal.)
