Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andrew <andrew@spam.net>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:10:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v7p9p4$2vns$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
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> <v7p2b2$1oe$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v7p2ti$8ank$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:10:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="98044"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CB31++DjI/+xh3pFvbkqGiS0bBw= sha256:hTdSzB74v1odgEINo6EdH0A5Wg93wZQ+QIr+51Zbqrk=
	sha1:49qJm+A07LsNoPu3Ebelu6E289w= sha256:tySExBpxlYvX9gCDQv4fZPNP3qJ7Yp5tqJJ9pjEa31Q=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 4522
Lines: 67

badgolferman wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:13:38 -0000 (UTC) :

>>> Everyone on this planet should have a right to basic privacy.
>> 
>> I agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible assessment of fact.
>> 
>> I fully agree with Jolly Roger (and I disagree with badgolferman).
>> 
>> We should never have to defend our right to privacy.
>> 
> 
> The object of my disagreement is not CSAM, it's the idea that everyone has
> the right to privacy. Prisoners, murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.
> do not deserve even basic privacy. Many of them are let off scot free for
> stupid technicalities while the families are left with no justice. Many of
> these people have a long history of harming others and should have been
> under surveillance or even locked up long before they hurt another person.

It's an interesting adult question of who deserves the right to privacy.

I'm sure in some fundamentalist countries, gay peop... ooops "LGBTQIA+"
people (according to this lookup https://gaycenter.org/community/lgbtq/)
have no right to live, let alone their right to privacy.

Hence, if I think, on a whim, that my neighbor is practicing sodomy, simply
because he closed his curtains at night, then certainly, he deserves no
right to privacy. The police... nay, the entire neighborhood is justified
in barging onto his property, breaking down his door, busting in his
bedroom door - on the mere whim of a suspicion he is practicing sodomy.

Why should our laws allow my neighbor any rights when he's probably having
anal sex with his lover? He has no right to privacy. None whatsoever. 

Why not?
Because I don't like what he's doing, that's why.

Only I get to make the rules.
Nobody else.

Of course, I'm making a point about who decides who has rights.
You've decided entire groups of people have no rights.
So have fundamentalist societies decided gay people have no rights.

It's how the world works.
But we don't have to agree with the decision that gay people have no rights
and we don't have to agree that lawbreakers have no right.

Hell, they're all recidivists, in the way you're stating things.
So they should never be afforded any of the Constitutional rights.

This is, of course, absurd.
The point of who has "rights" is up to the society that they live in.

While I need not say I'm no lawyer, it's my understanding that, here, in
the USA, we are *all* presumed innocent until proven guilty - right? 

And, we have in our Constitution the fundamental right to not be subject to
unreasonable search & seizure, right? Nor should our property be detained.

Bearing in mind that for all we know, exactly ZERO people may have been
convicted after all those Google, Meta (and yes, Apple) reports, the
article is clearly bullshit meant to be an unwarranted attack on Apple.

For now, I'm going to assume, for lack of data, that exactly zero people
were convicted - which means Google, Meta, and yes, Apple, broke the law.

Apple just does it far less than Google & Meta did.
Without the conviction rate - we have no business lambasting Apple.