Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

Chris wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:12:25 -0000 (UTC) :

It's interesting that you decided to choose (male) homosexuality as your
exemplar.

I also used tasteless tattoos as an example but it's interesting you only
found the male homosexuality interesting...

Something that has been oppressed and vilified by the church for centuries
primarily because of the distaste (fetishisation even) for the sexual act -
sodomy like you mention - for no good reason.

My point is the whole CSAM thing is bullshit.
It protects nobody.
It hurts everyone.

Curiously lesbianism was rarely so targeted and was often just accepted, if
not mentioned.
 
Like you say it is purely an opinion and choice which the state has no
right to have a say when it involves consenting adults in a private place
with no harm being done.

My point is that it's not up to you and me what we want to convict others
of. It's up to the laws of teh country. And in some countries, you can get
executed for things people do left and right here in California, Chris.

Which is my point about CSAM.

The whole CSAM thing is pure bullshit.
a. Nobody is protected.
b. Everyone is harmed.

You're, maybe unconsciously, making an equivalence here between
homosexuality and child sexual abuse because like many the focus is on the
sex rather than the abuse. Homosexuality is now legal so maybe CSAM is just
an opinion, right?

Again you focus on sexuality because of your own proclivities, Chris.
I mentioned tasteless tattoos also - but that doesn't interest you.

Wrong. Children can never consent to the abuse and are very vulnerable so
need additional protections by the adults in the room. There is no way we
should allow this to happen when we have ways to stop it in a healthy
society. Impacting on someone's theoretical privacy - which is unproven -
is a reasonable balance.

Given for all any of us know for sure, exactly zero convictions resulted.

That means everyone was hurt.
And nobody was protected.

You need to take a class in logic, Chris.
 

The point of who has "rights" is up to the society that they live in.

 
Correct. No person's rights are more important then another's. Your right
to freedom doesn't overrule someone's right to life.

That was my point. In some societies, women are killed for not covering
themselves up, right? It's not up to you or to me. It's up to the society.

In our society, the whole CSAM thing is nothing but pure bullshit.
a. Nobody is protected.
b. Everyone is hurt.

While I need not say I'm no lawyer, it's my understanding that, here, in
the USA, we are *all* presumed innocent until proven guilty - right?

 
In theory in the US. Not always in practice.

The whole CSAM bullshit violates the Constitution in my humble opinion; but
I will caveat that statement by making it very clear I am not a lawyer.

My point is I applaud that Apple didn't fall for the CSAM bullshit.
I lament that Google & Facebook did.

And, we have in our Constitution the fundamental right to not be subject to
unreasonable search & seizure, right? Nor should our property be detained.

 
Key word here is "unreasonable". All your examples have clearly been
unreasonable so very simplistic to defend.

It's unreasonable that a person takes a photo of a baby and they get
reported by the likes of Google & Facebook for something that innocent.

We all know that the law allows for people's rights to be suspended even
constitutional ones. Companies have an obligation to uphold the law.

In the USA, we have basic rights that most countries don't afford their
citizens. One of those rights is to not be subject to false imprisonment.

The whole CSAM thing violates the US Constitution, in my humble opinion.
However, I will state very clearly that I am not a lawyer.

Bearing in mind that for all we know, exactly ZERO people may have been
convicted after all those Google, Meta (and yes, Apple) reports, the
article is clearly bullshit meant to be an unwarranted attack on Apple.
 
For now, I'm going to assume, for lack of data, that exactly zero people
were convicted - which means Google, Meta, and yes, Apple, broke the law.

 
Which law, exactly?

Without any convictions being reported as a result of those reported
images, we have to assume, a priori, that the conviction rate is zero.

No other assessment is possible given it's the most important metric.
And given that the most important metric was omitted from the reports.

That means it's far more likely to be zero convictions, Chris.
It's basic logic.

Apple just does it far less than Google & Meta did.
Without the conviction rate - we have no business lambasting Apple.

 
Right. So where are your multitude of posts attacking google on the android
forum?

Have you every heard me say anything good about Google, Chris?