As a counterpoint to everything here, the Apple Watch just saved a friends life by telling them they were in AFib.
Yes, it could be bad. Or it could be medically beneficial to people who are anxious and depressed and simply don’t have anyone to help them recognize it because they’re alone. Particularly during the pandemic, that would have been useful.
As long as no health data leaves my Apple Watch + iPhone, I am OK with local deep learning (or other models) running on my devices.
I do wish there were International standards and local laws supporting: all data staying on users' devices unless explicitly shared with health care providers, and also agreed upon standards for anonymizing explicitly shared data for the public good (research, AI training data, etc.)
The problem here is the tight integration by Apple: the app and the networking services are implemented by the same company.
I'd be ok with an app by a third party which does not automatically gets network access on my phone explicitly or implicitly, so I know my data doesn't leave my phone.
Has there been any indication that health data and the associated sensitive information are leaving the device without the user's consent? They would run afoul of quite a lot of laws and regulations in all western jurisdictions the moment they do that.
AFAIK, except when you enrol in a study, none of that depends on network access.
the health and PII data making its way to log data may give Apple legal cover to ingest the data "accidentally", also.
Recall that Google got to claim their street view cars wardriving was unintentional, and just paid $13M to make it go away, after using the data for about a decade [1]
Well yeah, but without observable facts, this is just wild guesses or paranoia. Considering the regular news about weaknesses in anything from Safari to iMessages, I have a really hard time taking these claims seriously. The storage and processing of health data is documented, and they do not leave the device or the Secure Enclave (unless you accept it, e.g. during a study).
> Well yeah, but without observable facts, this is just wild guesses or paranoia.
Not at all. What you are saying is that you don't want to lock the front-door because nobody has illegally entered your house yet. In contrast, I want to lock my front-door for obvious reasons. No paranoia. It's just a different mentality of dealing with security.
Your wish wouldn’t work on iOS. Apple hasn’t so far focused on adding Internet access permission. Every app on the device gets access to the network by default. There is no way to stop one app from accessing the Internet while allowing others.
Sorry to use the phrase but this sucks. I feel like companies are too much focused on pushing shiny stuff while forgetting about basic security features.
I remember reading about a guy who got FreeBSD's "pf" working on an iPad. MacOS used to (still does?) ship with it. They could do it, they just don't want. They'd certainly never let you be the admin of it and block the gazillion telemetry requests they make back to themselves.
Frankly, it would probably be fine if it could be turned off and if turned on, doesn’t report its findings back to Apple (or anyone, but you, for the matter).
But this is not being done by the rest of the tech industry, it is being done by Apple, specifically, who have a record of behaviour with medical data that, as far as I am aware, is spotless.
Even if that's true -- and you've provided no proof -- the data would most likely get stored on iCloud, and just like iPhotos, Apple will decide one day to just start trolling through it for fun and profit.
CSAM is coming back in other ways. Apple will try again.
I'm assuming the FBI and various other law enforcement agencies would have kept pushing for access anyways, most likely by escalating to legal or legislative means ("let's ban encryption" type thing).
Despite what one may think of the police, they do have a legal basis for attempting to collect possible evidence in the natural course of their duties when equipped with an appropriate warrant. In such cases Apple might have been exposed to any number of different legal problems, including obstruction of justice accusations.
So it was probably just easier for Apple to comply. But who knows what the thinking was.
No, I am asking you why you keep claiming again and again that Apple wants this data. You have this clear evidence that they tried to make it harder to for themselves to get this data.
Why would they do that, if they want the data? Are they just complete morons?
"Apple health data stored on iCloud is encrypted so that Apple can not access it."
Whatever anyone is saying, they CAN access it if they want, and do so for law enforcement as needed.
From what I understand you are the one that seems to believe that Apple has tried to make it hard for themselves. I've been saying all along it's trivial for them to unlock iCloud data. As to why I say that -- the recent CSAM thing made me realize that I don't trust them. It's a personal thing.
Nor do I really care. I don't use Apple anymore, and I sleep better at night.
Yes, it could be bad. Or it could be medically beneficial to people who are anxious and depressed and simply don’t have anyone to help them recognize it because they’re alone. Particularly during the pandemic, that would have been useful.