Sneak, I think you're defending your article a little too loosely here.
Your article states that Apple is scanning your files and points to network traffic as evidence for this, combining in your summary that Apple scans the data and then tries to reach Apple owned APIs. You spend a non-trivial amount of the article discussing the CSAM plans Apple had, and making it very clear that Apple never said it wouldn't scan and send files/data to law enforcement.
Your article builds a case that Apple is exfiltrating data, be it document information, media analysis, etc, outside of the local machine; I find it difficult to accept this was not the intent based on how the article is structure, the bullet points, and the summary.
> I was literally viewing images in the Finder via spacebar QuickLook (not even in Preview) when it hit the network for the first time.
There is a lot of live processing done with the M1/M2 boards even without iCloud/Photos.
I understand you think your article presents an objective and curious item that asks the reader to investigate more, but I and other people in this topic are telling you this is not the way your article is understood and interpreted, and we've pointed out how the other conclusion was reached based on your article. An inquisitive article with a call to action would be just that, as other commenters have already posted:
- I see this daemon trying to reach out to Apple APIs
- At this time, I was doing this
- I have not investigated the binary or network traffic
- I find this interesting, but I have not yet drawn a conclusion on it
- I invite others to comment on it more
If the article was presented like that, you wouldn't have so many comments here stating that they find your conclusion premature and misunderstanding your intention.
If your intent is really to call for investigation, I would suggest that you add an addendum section to the article clarifying your goals and purpose, as it seems that overwhelmingly readers are not taking this interpretation.
Your article states that Apple is scanning your files and points to network traffic as evidence for this, combining in your summary that Apple scans the data and then tries to reach Apple owned APIs. You spend a non-trivial amount of the article discussing the CSAM plans Apple had, and making it very clear that Apple never said it wouldn't scan and send files/data to law enforcement.
Your article builds a case that Apple is exfiltrating data, be it document information, media analysis, etc, outside of the local machine; I find it difficult to accept this was not the intent based on how the article is structure, the bullet points, and the summary.
> I was literally viewing images in the Finder via spacebar QuickLook (not even in Preview) when it hit the network for the first time.
Yes, this is likely LiveText and other OCR features done live on the M1/M2 models: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/visionkit/enabling...
There is a lot of live processing done with the M1/M2 boards even without iCloud/Photos.
I understand you think your article presents an objective and curious item that asks the reader to investigate more, but I and other people in this topic are telling you this is not the way your article is understood and interpreted, and we've pointed out how the other conclusion was reached based on your article. An inquisitive article with a call to action would be just that, as other commenters have already posted:
- I see this daemon trying to reach out to Apple APIs
- At this time, I was doing this
- I have not investigated the binary or network traffic
- I find this interesting, but I have not yet drawn a conclusion on it
- I invite others to comment on it more
If the article was presented like that, you wouldn't have so many comments here stating that they find your conclusion premature and misunderstanding your intention.
If your intent is really to call for investigation, I would suggest that you add an addendum section to the article clarifying your goals and purpose, as it seems that overwhelmingly readers are not taking this interpretation.