Path: ...!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: 26 Jul 2024 16:11:26 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <lgi05eFq6vhU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <v7mup4$7vpf$1@solani.org> <lg8ea1Fa94U1@mid.individual.net>
 <xn0oonlp4azqw16000@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <lga2k1F7uk8U1@mid.individual.net>
 <xn0oonrftb7hazk002@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <v7olut$19iie$1@dont-email.me> <lga8vfF8qq0U3@mid.individual.net>
 <v7q9vj$1l9co$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7qn3b$2hg0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <v7rclq$1r24r$2@dont-email.me> <lgdac6F3c6aU4@mid.individual.net>
 <v80bju$2s7ns$2@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: individual.net FV8u75w76hPBXjJwMiZ72QJKEM22Ireu7pfiSB2kjZWLwmQCph
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DJmLXZU5uKBWuFQ5f9y72SKHXVQ= sha256:B5r46GjU+rDR0Ih1EFd5cL9qoqBCueNbvpDlVcH3sI0=
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: _.g>n!a$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: 2866

On 2024-07-26, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/07/2024 22:35, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2024-07-24, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:20:19 -0000 (UTC) :
>>>>
>>>>> The NSPCC should really be complaining at how ineffectual the tech
>>>>> companies are rather than complain at Apple for not sending
>>>>> millions of photos to already overwhelmed authorities.
>>>>
>>>> For all that is in the news stories, it could be ZERO convictions
>>>> resulted.
>>>>
>>>> Think about that.
>>>>
>>>> Is it worth everyone's loss of privacy for maybe zero gain in child
>>>> safety?
>>>
>>> Apple's solution wouldn't have resulted in any additional loss of
>>> privacy
>> 
>> Actually, Apple could not guarantee that, and there was a non-zero
>> chance that false positive matches would result in privacy
>> violations.
>
> True. The balance of risk was proportionate, however. Much moreso than
> the current system.

Absolutely. I'm just of the opinion if one innocent person is harmed,
that's one too many. Would you want to be that unlucky innocent person
who has to deal with charges, a potential criminal sexual violation on
your record, and all that comes with it? I certainly wouldn't.

-- 
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