Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

On 2024-07-25, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 21:33:12 GMT :
>

It's probably zero given it's the most important metric.

 
It's not zero. Not even close.

>
You're simply guessing. I'm using logic.

Again, little Arlen, you're projecting. You claimed absolutely zero
people have been convicted, which is not the case. This isn't a guess:

Man Stored Child Pornography on Google Account, Sentenced to 14 Years in
Federal Prison
<https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtx/pr/man-stored-child-pornography-google-account-sentenced-14-years-federal-prison>

They're different logical algorithms.

No, you're just delusional. It's not zero.

Without convictions, the reporting of CSAM images is meaningless.

 
There have been plenty of convictions.

>
Logically, if they had appreciable convictions, they'd have mentioned
it.  The fact they don't bother to mention it, means it's probably
almost zero.

Now you're desperately trying to move the goal post from your original
claim of "absolutely zero". Not happening, and the fact that some
nebulous "they" didn't happen to mention the number of CSAM convictions
in one particular instance means nothing. You're goal post shifting and
deflecting, as usual.

Because it isn't likely that they simply forgot the only fact that
matters.

Your claim that the only fact that matters is the number of convictions
is dubious at best. I contend that what matters most is that innocent
people's privacy may be violated. Things like this shouldn't happen, as
it's a clear violation of the children's and their parents' privacy:

Google AI flagged parents’ accounts for potential abuse over nude photos
of their sick kids
<https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/21/23315513/google-photos-csam-scanning-account-deletion-investigation>

The reason they didn't report it is likely because it's actually
zero.

 
No.

>
It's the only fact that matters.  And they forgot it?

The only fact that matters to *you*. You don't get to make that claim
for the rest of us, and certainly not the person who wrote the article.

No. They're not that stupid. They're bullshitting us on this CSAM
garbage.

The only bullshitter I see here is you.

Is it worth everyone's loss of privacy for maybe zero gain in
child safety?

 
Your right to privacy shouldn't be violated because someone else
might do something wrong.

>
I agree with you.
>
They get zero convictions.

 
That's a lie.

>
I realize you guess at everything in life, Jolly Roger.

You're projecting. You claimed the number was absolutely zero. And I've
provided evidence that the number of convictions is greater than zero,
little Arlen.

I use logic.

No, you just lie.

Logically thinking, the only metric that matters is convictions.

You don't get to make that claim.

And actually, the only metric that matters is the number of innocent
people whose privacy may be violated. If that number is greater than
zero, then you can count me (and a whole lot of others who reserve their
right to privacy) out.

--
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