Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!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: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:07:04 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v7tiln$2g2b$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> <v7rfko$18sp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lgda8oF3c6aU3@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:07:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="81995"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pSDUlkPcbu1l/9E6XQRMxYrBYaU= sha256:x4L1UA7KNhG2MdmJ8ISV1uQP6CAptJiwuVm+Yew3SW0=
	sha1:WYoP8w6zJIrPvoCDVR5d8hevqlM= sha256:n35/VPrW7mOJOcnpq7wuZ8FcDh7RxW89kRu3OXQXKUg=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 3339
Lines: 52

Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 21:33:12 GMT :

>> It's probably zero given it's the most important metric.
> 
> It's not zero. Not even close.

You're simply guessing. I'm using logic. 
They're different logical algorithms.

>> Without convictions, the reporting of CSAM images is meaningless.
> 
> There have been plenty of convictions.

Logically, if they had appreciable convictions, they'd have mentioned it.
The fact they don't bother to mention it, means it's probably almost zero.

Because it isn't likely that they simply forgot the only fact that matters.
 
>> The reason they didn't report it is likely because it's actually zero.
> 
> No.

It's the only fact that matters.
And they forgot it?

No. They're not that stupid. They're bullshitting us on this CSAM garbage.

>>>> 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.
> 
> That's a lie.

I realize you guess at everything in life, Jolly Roger. 
I use logic.

Logically thinking, the only metric that matters is convictions.
a. It doesn't matter how many people or images are reported.
b. It matters how many (or what percentage) are convicted.
c. If they "forgot" to report that metric, most likely it's almost zero.
d. Which means nobody is protected by CSAM while everyone is harmed.

Anyone can prove me wrong by showing the CSAM reporting conviction rates.
But they can't.

That's likely because the conviction rates are likely almost zero.
If you hate logic, then prove that logic wrong with facts, not guesses.