Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:23:16 +0100 :
 

Chris just lied about convictions.
Why did Chris lie?

 
Given I was responding to your claim of "ZERO convictions"...

 
Do you realize the number of convictions was never in dispute, Chris?

Except by you.

What is in dispute is your claims that Apple/Google/Facebook CSAM scanning
has a 100% conviction rate (which is essentially your claim, Chris).

I never said, nor implied, that. I even made that point in my first reply
to the OP.

You're out of ideas and are simply making shit up. I expect you to give up
this thread shortly. Like you always do when you get your arse have to you.

I realize your mind forms strong belief systems based on exactly zero
facts,

Projection.

Chris - but the way most normal people work is they use facts.

It's obvious you're not normal then.

Without knowing what the conviction rate is per report by
Google/Apple/Facebook, we have to assume that it's zero percent.

Nope.

No other logical assessment is possible (by an actual adult).

Of course there is. Actual adults use all the information available to
them, not simply what is contained within a single (relatively poorly
informed) news article.

And since that's the most important metric, the fact that it's purposefully
left out of the reports is an indication that it's probably zero percent.

Given the huge numbers of images it probably is close to zero in percentage
terms, but even if it's only 1 conviction it's a good thing.

Because the people writing those reports are not stupid.

Maybe not intentionally so, but they are not always well informed. I've
worked with charities and their data skills are pretty non-existent. They
are primarily people people, not data/informatics people.

They *know* the only metric isn't convictions - but conviction rates.

False. Any conviction is a "good thing" (TM).