Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!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 14:04:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v7tm0h$1nmm$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> <v7q92v$1l4i5$1@dont-email.me> <v7qnha$bnp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lgclidFbd6U2@mid.individual.net> <v7revb$182$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lgda13F3c6aU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:04:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="57046"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bBZg3cJf5kVUvJCULZ6nDaHxAbI= sha256:VjsfBUpXImyIrra21m8RjXLIy75odSZD5aPNGEujlFA=
	sha1:HjLeELvf+U71UXX+8tqZWYwbN20= sha256:1fUXLgjtRiQurVF71mlYW05NGq/IeMTa+7CIGqbvnSg=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 3029
Lines: 36

Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 21:29:07 GMT :

>> What matters is the percentage
> 
> No, words have meanings, and zero means zero. And there is a
> higher-than-zero number of pedophiles who have been caught due to CSAM
> scanning. Unfortunately, there is also a higher-than-zero number of
> innocent people whose privacy was violated in the process.

While I support that Apple didn't report nearly the pure numbers of images
that Google & Facebook did, the reports were extremely clear in what their
click-bait blame-Apple yellow journalism objective was, were they not?

The reports were attempting to convince us that Apple isn't doing its job
in "protecting children" that Google & Facebook were doing, were they not?

And yet, it could be Apple's conviction rate was 99% while Google &
Facebook had 1% conviction rates - which would mean that Apple is
"protecting children" fare more than Google/FB did, isn't that right?

You see, I know logic. I also know bullshit.
Without the conviction rate, simply comparing images reported is bullshit.

They're not stupid.
They know this.

The fact they didn't report the only metric that matters, means something.

Most likely, it means they know what wasn't reported - which is that the
conviction rate on all these invasions of privacy are probably nearly 0.

The result?
a. Nobody is protected.
b. Everyone is hurt.

Prove me wrong with conviction rates for images reported.
Nothing else has any meaning.