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,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:50:36 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v7tl79$n95$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> <v7rclq$1r24r$2@dont-email.me> <lgdac6F3c6aU4@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:50:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="23845"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H11NELXJ5gBDnyc4F3IqKi0wqUU= sha256:o0q4rRz5bYIGZ4lvq6IUNJvSA54oQiDIkqV2xAWkkCs=
	sha1:Ut365EOPwBpx/u3+o94KGNjtjOk= sha256:0rHYtQ9vWvAS+Oz4vKRQSt48QMr0D5tDjY8+e2KZDNM=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 3329
Lines: 42

Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 21:35:02 GMT :

>> 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.
> 
>> plus it only affected customers of icloud. Don't like it? Don't use
>> icloud.  Simple. 
> 
> That much is true. Only images uploaded to iCloud would have been
> examined by the algorithm.

While I fully agree with what Apple is doing compared to Google/FB... 
I'm going to see if you guys can work out the basic logic involved, OK?

1. The articles clearly were lambasting Apple, right?
2. They were saying Apple underreports CSAM, right?
3. To do that, they reported CSAM numbers between Apple & others, right?

Guess what.

The number of reports is NOT a meaningful metric without the percentage of
those reports that result in convictions. That's just basic logic, right?

The fact they "forgot" to show the most meaningful metric, while they were
clearly desperate to show that Apple underreports the CSAM numbers, is a
clue by four that they are bullshitting us.

They're not that stupid.

They KNOW if they reported the conviction rate, their argument would fall
flat - so that's likely why they conveniently forgot about the only metric
that matters.

In fact, it could be Apple's conviction rate is 99% (for all we know),
while Google's conviction rate could be 50% & Facebook's 99%.

Without knowing the conviction rate, the reported numbers are meaningless.
Since they know that (they're not stupid), they likely bullshitting us.

If you don't like logic, simply prove me wrong with the conviction rates.