Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 16:21:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v85r6s$mgr$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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:21:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="12793de90456d67421d6281200f5c82d";
	logging-data="23067"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Llm0UwA5sKIXL0XVI6Xva1j/OXAdqL2Y="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ivSLozz/H9omSJ4jxHzFuYOJlEc=
	sha1:xxEd1sGh4Ehd6AJgK/sHm1LZmDc=
Bytes: 4502

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> 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. 

You're entering into confucious territory. If nothing is triggered is
anyone's privacy infringed. 

> Do you want a
> stranger looking at photos of your sick child? 

That wouldn't happen with Apple's method. 

> 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?

That's a lot of ifs and steps. No-one is going to be charged for a dubious
photo of their own child. There are much bigger fish to fry and get into
jail. 

>> ...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.

How many children are you prepared to be abused to protect YOUR privacy? 

> Apple was wise to shelve this proposal. And I am happy to see that they
> embraced more private features such as the Safe Communication feature
> which is done without violating customers' privacy. 

It wasn't violating anyone's privacy. For the umpteenth time. It actually
preserved people's privacy by design.