If they don’t look at my data, they don’t even have to encrypt it.
If they don’t try to look at my data, they don’t need to wonder whether they should ask my permission.
I don’t want Apple or anybody else looking at my data, for any reason, is my point.
Yet I’ll still try to clarify the technical aspect because I find that genuinely interesting and actually positive. The point of homomorphic encryption is that they are NOT looking at your data. They are not encrypting data to decrypt them. An analogy would be that :
we are a dozen of friends around a table,
we each have 5 cards hidden from others,
we photocopy 1 card in secret
we shred the copied card, remove half of it, put it in a cup and write a random long number on that cup
we place that cup in a covered bowl
one of us randomly picked gets to pick a cup, count how many red shards are in it, write it back in the cup and writes adds the number to the total written on the bowl, we repeat that process until all cups are written on only once
once that’s done we each pick back our up without showing it to the others
Thanks to that process we know both something about our card (the number of red shards) and all other cards (total number of red shards on the bowl) without having actually revealed what our card is. We have done so without sharing our data (the uncut original card) and it’s not possible to know its content, even if somebody were to take all cups.
So… that’s roughly how homomorphic encryption works. It’s honestly fascinating and important IMHO, the same way that cryptography and its foundation, e.g. one way functions or computational complexity more broadly, are basically the basis for privacy online today.
You don’t have to agree with how Apple implemented but I’d argue understanding how it works and when it can be used is important.
Let me know if it makes sense, it’s the first time I tried to make an analogy for it.
PS: if someone working on HE has a better analogy or spot incorrect parts, please do share.
It makes sense, but you totally miss my point.
To go with your analogy, my point is:
I’m not interested in playing cards
That’s it.
I don’t care how fascinating the technology is and how clever Apple are: they are not welcome to implement it on my device. I didn’t invite them to setup a card game and I expect them not to break into my house to setup a table.
I wish, sadly that’s not how using non open source or open hardware devices work. You are running their software on their hardware with their limitations. It’s not a PC or SBC.
Edit: if we were to stick to the card game analogy, it’d be more like playing the card game in a hotel, in a room that you rented, rather than at home.
And it should, unfortunately it’s not. Maybe right to repair and other laws will, hopefully, change that but for now, it’s bundling, part pairing and locks all the way down.
If they don’t look at my data, they don’t even have to encrypt it.
If they don’t try to look at my data, they don’t need to wonder whether they should ask my permission.
I don’t want Apple or anybody else looking at my data, for any reason, is my point.
I agree on permission.
Yet I’ll still try to clarify the technical aspect because I find that genuinely interesting and actually positive. The point of homomorphic encryption is that they are NOT looking at your data. They are not encrypting data to decrypt them. An analogy would be that :
Thanks to that process we know both something about our card (the number of red shards) and all other cards (total number of red shards on the bowl) without having actually revealed what our card is. We have done so without sharing our data (the uncut original card) and it’s not possible to know its content, even if somebody were to take all cups.
So… that’s roughly how homomorphic encryption works. It’s honestly fascinating and important IMHO, the same way that cryptography and its foundation, e.g. one way functions or computational complexity more broadly, are basically the basis for privacy online today.
You don’t have to agree with how Apple implemented but I’d argue understanding how it works and when it can be used is important.
Let me know if it makes sense, it’s the first time I tried to make an analogy for it.
PS: if someone working on HE has a better analogy or spot incorrect parts, please do share.
It makes sense, but you totally miss my point. To go with your analogy, my point is:
That’s it.
I don’t care how fascinating the technology is and how clever Apple are: they are not welcome to implement it on my device. I didn’t invite them to setup a card game and I expect them not to break into my house to setup a table.
I wish, sadly that’s not how using non open source or open hardware devices work. You are running their software on their hardware with their limitations. It’s not a PC or SBC.
Edit: if we were to stick to the card game analogy, it’d be more like playing the card game in a hotel, in a room that you rented, rather than at home.
It’s funny how it feels like my money when I pay for the device at the cash register.
And it should, unfortunately it’s not. Maybe right to repair and other laws will, hopefully, change that but for now, it’s bundling, part pairing and locks all the way down.