Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: 27 Jul 2024 16:55:11 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <lgkn3fF87a5U1@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> <lgi05eFq6vhU2@mid.individual.net>
 <v80j93$2nqsm$5@dont-email.me> <lgildlFtal2U1@mid.individual.net>
 <v81a8d$31o1l$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: individual.net CqzGNSRUQxB3h55ecfSSCgHT5HXMViFs8M/FiWCab4KvbCl3TL
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6X6Gy8lQ9Nq+UQzaAxKyG6P3DAs= sha256:uRexLRtH1LXLdy0kwpnv+OR7AUlWBja8LSYCDrmbsqs=
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: _.g>n!a$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: 4856

On 2024-07-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-07-26 15:14, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2024-07-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-26 09:11, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Except that Apple's system wouldn't automatically trigger charges.
>>>
>>> An actual human would review the images in question...
>> 
>> And at that point, someone's privacy may be violated. Do you want a
>> stranger looking at photos of your sick child? What if that stranger
>> came to the conclusion that those photos are somehow classifiable as
>> sexual or abusive in some way? Would you want to have to argue your case
>> in court because of it?
>
> Yes. At that point...
>
> ...if and only if the person is INNOCENT...
>
> ...someone's privacy is unnecessarily violated.
>
> And it's a stretch to imagine that:
>
> 1. Innocent pictures would be matched with KNOWN CSAM images, AND;

Not it's not. There was a margin of error in the proposed matching
algorithms.

> (the logical AND)
>
> 2. A person reviewing those images after they've been flagged wouldn't
> notice they don't actually match; AND

That decision is a human one, and humans make mistakes and have biased
beliefs that can lead them to make faulty decisions.

> 3. The owner of those images at that point would be charged when they
> could then show that they were in fact innocent images.

Innocent people shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone. 

>> Yes, but one is one too many in my book.
>
> And yet you are fine with innocent people's privacy being violated
> when a search warrant is issued erroneously.

Search warrants require probable cause and are signed by a judge.
Totally different scenario.

-- 
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