Article <lgcl7oFbd6U1@mid.individual.net>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <lgcl7oFbd6U1@mid.individual.net>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<lgcl7oFbd6U1@mid.individual.net>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms
Date: 24 Jul 2024 15:34:16 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <lgcl7oFbd6U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <v7mup4$7vpf$1@solani.org> <v7o49q$16cpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7obdd$17fqi$2@dont-email.me> <v7olme$19gq3$1@dont-email.me>
 <lga95bF8qq0U4@mid.individual.net> <v7q92v$1l4i5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: individual.net neELEdhwrhynP+ZtLLSaRAXFn4W84NYqrhmO1dmTIoMvaormse
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RCC8lyS2J6dcPh6eQ6OpXYQTBW4= sha256:kJMm33UBn6FXkjZ+9n8sCSNiCO6Y4C/PpSVNl6braO0=
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM
 dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW<
 ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e
 up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Darwin)
Bytes: 2167

On 2024-07-24, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Apple's proposal was to match personal photos with *known* CSAM
>> images.
>
> Correct. 
>
>> It would do nothing to detect *new* CSAM images. 
>
> Also correct. 
>
>> And it could not prevent false positive matches. 
>
> Incorrect.

Nope. I am correct. It absolutely could not prevent false matches. 

> It is designed to avoid false positives, although nothing is 100%
> perfect. 

If it has even .1 % false matches, then someone's privacy has been
violated.

>> Everyone on this planet should have a right to basic privacy. 
>
> And they do.

Tell that to the people whose private photos are scanned and are falsely
accused of a crime they didn't commit because an imperfect algorithm got
it wrong.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR