Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:07:57 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v81a8d$31o1l$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v80bju$2s7ns$2@dont-email.me> <lgi05eFq6vhU2@mid.individual.net>
 <v80j93$2nqsm$5@dont-email.me> <lgildlFtal2U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 01:07:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a727c11014ca40347625e8d70f473602";
	logging-data="3203125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gFWUn+NsvB9s3iv4nqqd+ZfqNuIg0Mp8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:skyWwlbLpoNL75VkuUqSX+Xkc8Y=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <lgildlFtal2U1@mid.individual.net>
Bytes: 4435

On 2024-07-26 15:14, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2024-07-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-07-26 09:11, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-26, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24/07/2024 22:35, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-24, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:20:19 -0000 (UTC) :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NSPCC should really be complaining at how ineffectual the
>>>>>>>> tech companies are rather than complain at Apple for not sending
>>>>>>>> millions of photos to already overwhelmed authorities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all that is in the news stories, it could be ZERO convictions
>>>>>>> resulted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think about that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it worth everyone's loss of privacy for maybe zero gain in
>>>>>>> child safety?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> True. The balance of risk was proportionate, however. Much moreso
>>>> than the current system.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. I'm just of the opinion if one innocent person is harmed,
>>> that's one too many. Would you want to be that unlucky innocent
>>> person who has to deal with charges, a potential criminal sexual
>>> violation on your record, and all that comes with it? I certainly
>>> wouldn't.
>>
>> Except that Apple's system wouldn't automatically trigger charges.
>>
>> An actual human would review the images in question...
> 
> And at that point, someone's privacy may be violated. Do you want a
> stranger looking at photos of your sick child? What if that stranger
> came to the conclusion that those photos are somehow classifiable as
> sexual or abusive in some way? Would you want to have to argue your case
> in court because of it?

Yes. At that point...

....if and only if the person is INNOCENT...

....someone's privacy is unnecessarily violated.

And it's a stretch to imagine that:

1. Innocent pictures would be matched with KNOWN CSAM images, AND;

(the logical AND)

2. A person reviewing those images after they've been flagged wouldn't 
notice they don't actually match; AND

3. The owner of those images at that point would be charged when they 
could then show that they were in fact innocent images.

All three of those things have to happen before this would ever wind up 
in court.

> 
>> ...AND since they were comparing images against KNOWN CSAM, false
>> positives would naturally be very few to begin with.
> 
> Yes, but one is one too many in my book.

And yet you are fine with innocent people's privacy being violated when 
a search warrant is issued erroneously.