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
Subject: Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:11:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v861k2$vom$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> <lgcl7oFbd6U1@mid.individual.net> <v7rda8$1r5n5$1@dont-email.me> <v7rf50$56o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v85qi7$iro$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:11:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="32534"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LUTHSzrJL96e791Urij9XpxNIt0= sha256:A1B7vCDtgxhFZ6euligsi312TWc75nbvYntKqzn6jN0=
	sha1:ZcJSV93Wk/TKiyafvlE5rBUp0vc= sha256:BTXrdH2lotgx1orfEqXc/PrERSiUGthFDToKlTNa8lo=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 4497
Lines: 72

Chris wrote on Sun, 28 Jul 2024 16:10:47 -0000 (UTC) :

>> You can't make that assessment without fabricating the percentage of
>> convictions, which, let's be clear, is the most important metric of all.
> 
> It is the end game, obviously, but it is not the most important metric.
>  As
> you've been banging the drum about for forever, people's privacy is
> important so need to avoid as many false positives as possible. Which is
> what Apple tried to achieve with their novel method. 
> 
>> The people who reported all this CSAM bullshit *know* that the percentage
>> of convictions is the most important metric without which everything is BS.
> 
> The NSPCC are a UK charity and are not party to that data. They do not know
> that information. 
> 
>> Given they didn't bother to report that metric, we must assume it's 0.
> 
> False assumption. We know there are many convictions and almost all involve
> digital images which have collected and/or shared via the interwebs. 
> 
>> Hence, as far as we know, out of 30 million images reported, exactly zero
>> convictions resulted - which means every report was a false positive.
>> 
>> Think about that.
> 
> Apple did and came up with a better solution, however people like you, who
> would never be impacted, grabbed their tinfoil hats and screamed "foul". 
> 
>> Everyone was harmed.
>> Nobody was protected.
>> 
>> It's a classic case of pure bullshit.
> 
> Just like you spout 99% of the time.

Chris,

What you're claiming is so absurd that it's no different than claiming your
kid took a thousand tests and therefore he has a better grade than a kid
who only took ten tests and who got an A on every one of those ten tests.

If your kid failed all the thousand tests, while another kid got an A on
only ten tests - your claim that the kid with the thousand tests has a
better end result just because he took many tests is simply ridiculous.

What matters isn't the sheer number of reports.
What matters is the number of those reports resulting in convictions.

And you do NOT know that information.
None of us know it.

It's *always* the most important metric when you are weighing harm against
privacy of everyone against an attempt to protect the safety of anyone.

Since there is no more important metric than the percentage of reports that
resulted in convictions, the fact it is missing means they're bullshitting
you.

It's no different than Apple saying "ten times better" or "lasts longer",
or "safe and secure", etc., when there's absolutely nothing to compare to.

For all you know, Apple's lower number of reports could have resulted in
far greater convictions than Google's/Facebook's far higher report numbers.

In general, when someone smart (which I presume people making these claims
are) omits the most important detail - they're trying to bullshit us.

Prove me wrong.
Show all of us the percentage of reports resulting in convictions.

HINT: You can't.