On 23/07/2024 19:53 "badgolferman" wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>On 2024-07-23, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>On 2024-07-23, badgolferman
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-23, badgolferman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple declined to comment on the NSPCC's accusation,
>>>>>>>instead pointing The Guardian to a statement it made when
>>>>>>>it shelved the CSAM scanning plan. Apple said it opted
>>>>>>>for a different strategy that “prioritizes the security
>>>>>>>and privacy of [its] users.” The company told Wired in
>>>>>>>August 2022 that "children can be protected without
>>>>>>>companies combing through personal data."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is one reason many people choose Apple over
>>>>>>alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> iPhone. The preferred mobile device of child molestors.
>>>>>
>>>>> This could be a new marketing ploy someday!
>>>>
>>>> Privacy for everyone is important.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I can't agree with that. Some people give up their right to
>>> privacy when they harm others or society. The laws are there for
>>> everyone, not just those who choose to follow them.
>>
>>Your problem is you want to invade everyone's privacy regardless of
>>whether they are hurting anyone. That's the only way CSAM scanning can
>>work, and why Apple wisely withdrew their proposal even though it
>>worked harder to preserve privacy than any other solution.
>
> No, I take exception to your statement that privacy is for *everyone*.
> There are plenty of people in this world who should have their privacy
> and freedom taken away forever. Many of them their lives too.
You can scream all you want but the majority of consumers is not going
to allow this mass invasion of their privacy, no matter how many children,
get abused.
We're already given up too much of our privacy already. But client side
scanning is where people draw the line. Users expect to be able to do
whatever they want on their OWN computers without the operating system
ratting them out!
