Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

On 25/07/2024 21:52, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 25 Jul 2024 19:22:24 GMT :
 

You're simply guessing. I'm using logic.  They're different logical
algorithms.

>
Nope. You're guessing just as much as JR.
>
The facts - and we know you like them, but never look for them - are
that there are many convictions on a depressingly regular basis. Just
look at the press releases from the DoJ Project Safe Childhood:
https://www.justice.gov/psc/press-room

>
My statements aren't guesses. There have been plenty of convictions.

Apologies JR, I'm agreeing with you.

Unfortunately, there have also been privacy violations of innocent
people. And that's my primary concern when it comes to CSAM scanning.

 Chris just lied about convictions.
Why did Chris lie?

Given I was responding to your claim of "ZERO convictions"...
 > On 2024-07-24, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
 >> Jolly Roger wrote on 24 Jul 2024 15:48:22 GMT :
 >>
 >>>> For all that is in the news stories, it could be ZERO convictions
 >>>> resulted.
 >>>
 >>> It's nowhere near zero.
 >>
 >> It's probably zero given it's the most important metric.
 >
 > It's not zero. Not even close.
...there is no lie on my part.

I don't know why Chris lied.
All I know is that Chris lied.
 I suspect Chris felt the need to lie because he had no valid point.
The cite Chris listed said NOTHING whatsoever about the conviction rate.

Nor did you make any reference to a rate. You're getting your little mind confused.
Given the evidence that lots of people are being convicted of CSAM then the rate is also non-zero. We'll never know exactly as the relationship between the number of images disclosed by google et al is not directly linear to the number of convictions for a wide variety of reasons such as false positives, national borders, lack of traceability, size of image collection by the criminals, seriousness of crimes, etc.