Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

On 2024-07-23, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:

Am 23.07.24 um 13:31 schrieb Chris:
>

After being a bit skeptical of Apple's solution, I realised it was a
pretty good and pragmatic balance between respecting people's
privacy and protecting vulnerable people. I was disappointed that
the angry "muh freedom" brigade scuppered it.

 
It was neither a good nor an acceptable solution. This being the
reason why Apple decided against it in the end.

>
It was sunk by reactionary know-it-alls. If anyone bothered looked at
the technology - which Apple published openly - they would have seen
it was pretty elegant and privacy preserving.

It still allowed for privacy invasion with false positives - and that's
the point.

It could have been a really good tool to protect children, but no,
people's non-rights were more important.

Apple's proposal was to match personal photos with *known* CSAM images.
It would do nothing to detect *new* CSAM images. And it could not
prevent false positive matches.

Everyone on this planet should have a right to basic privacy.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR