Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:03:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v7rfko$18sp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
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$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lgcm26Fbd6U4@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:03:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="41881"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wOmhheniDKf58z+1phzFl5qft7g= sha256:H0UZ02ctgfzFPPMlU7wnNQfmIWmkXY67FZiuiLhH0y0=
	sha1:qf1d75Yt7YeSalnk1T8gBFkJtFg= sha256:0vhPoGcI1JBwYPDYa8yhI4jY3WJA5hjEz17Rg9mbq4s=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 2571
Lines: 32

Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 15:48:22 GMT :

>> For all that is in the news stories, it could be ZERO convictions
>> resulted.
> 
> It's nowhere near zero.

It's probably zero given it's the most important metric.
And it's missing from the story.

Everyone knows that's the only metric that matters.
Without convictions, the reporting of CSAM images is meaningless.

The reason they didn't report it is likely because it's actually zero.
Which means this whole CSAM reporting issue is complete bullshit.

> 
>> Is it worth everyone's loss of privacy for maybe zero gain in child
>> safety?
> 
> Your right to privacy shouldn't be violated because someone else might do
> something wrong.

I agree with you.

They get zero convictions.
Which means nobody is protected.
And yet, everyone is harmed.

If they had convictions, they'd have mentioned it.
The fact they don't mention it, means it's zero.

Because it isn't likely that they simply forgot the most important fact.