Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

On 24/07/2024 19:17, Andrew wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:12:25 -0000 (UTC) :
 

It's interesting that you decided to choose (male) homosexuality as your
exemplar.

 I also used tasteless tattoos as an example but it's interesting you only
found the male homosexuality interesting...

Both highlight your own internal bias.

Something that has been oppressed and vilified by the church for centuries
primarily because of the distaste (fetishisation even) for the sexual act -
sodomy like you mention - for no good reason.

 My point is the whole CSAM thing is bullshit.

False

It protects nobody.

False

It hurts everyone.

False
It's crazy how people distort reality to suit their own world view. It's more convenient to pretend that their preferences have no impact on others.

Curiously lesbianism was rarely so targeted and was often just accepted, if
not mentioned.
>
Like you say it is purely an opinion and choice which the state has no
right to have a say when it involves consenting adults in a private place
with no harm being done.

 My point is that it's not up to you and me what we want to convict others
of. It's up to the laws of teh country.

As members of society it is up to us as we inform how and which laws are implemented.

And in some countries, you can get
executed for things people do left and right here in California, Chris.

Immaterial. The UK and US where we live have made different decisions which are the laws we follow. You're allowed not to like tattoos or homosexuality, but you can't infringe other people's rights to partake in them.
Like I've said before your rights are not more important than others'. So a child's right to safety is not subordinate to your right to privacy.

Which is my point about CSAM.
 The whole CSAM thing is pure bullshit.
a. Nobody is protected.
b. Everyone is harmed.

Repeating lies doesn't make them true.

 

While I need not say I'm no lawyer, it's my understanding that, here, in
the USA, we are *all* presumed innocent until proven guilty - right?

>
In theory in the US. Not always in practice.

 The whole CSAM bullshit violates the Constitution in my humble opinion; but
I will caveat that statement by making it very clear I am not a lawyer.
 My point is I applaud that Apple didn't fall for the CSAM bullshit.

What you're applauding Apple for is what you abhor them for: marketing. They succumbed to public pressure as it might have hurt their bottom line instead of doing what was right.

I lament that Google & Facebook did.

You still aren't posting dozens of posts a day targeting them, are you? Hypocrite.

And, we have in our Constitution the fundamental right to not be subject to
unreasonable search & seizure, right? Nor should our property be detained.

>
Key word here is "unreasonable". All your examples have clearly been
unreasonable so very simplistic to defend.

 It's unreasonable that a person takes a photo of a baby and they get
reported by the likes of Google & Facebook for something that innocent.

Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about. We are WAY past that bullshit where, allegedly, film developers would report baby photos to the police.
There's nothing innocent of the CSAM that Apple would have been able to target precisely and accurately.

We all know that the law allows for people's rights to be suspended even
constitutional ones. Companies have an obligation to uphold the law.

 In the USA, we have basic rights that most countries don't afford their
citizens. One of those rights is to not be subject to false imprisonment.

Get over yourself. The US isn't particularly special.

The whole CSAM thing violates the US Constitution, in my humble opinion.
However, I will state very clearly that I am not a lawyer.

Clearly. If it violated the constitution dozens of lawyers & judges would have already shut it down.

Bearing in mind that for all we know, exactly ZERO people may have been
convicted after all those Google, Meta (and yes, Apple) reports, the
article is clearly bullshit meant to be an unwarranted attack on Apple.
>
For now, I'm going to assume, for lack of data, that exactly zero people
were convicted - which means Google, Meta, and yes, Apple, broke the law.

>
Which law, exactly?

 Without any convictions being reported as a result of those reported
images, we have to assume, a priori, that the conviction rate is zero.

Non answer. Which law are google et al breaking?

No other assessment is possible given it's the most important metric.
And given that the most important metric was omitted from the reports.
 That means it's far more likely to be zero convictions, Chris.
It's basic logic.
 

Apple just does it far less than Google & Meta did.
Without the conviction rate - we have no business lambasting Apple.

>
Right. So where are your multitude of posts attacking google on the android
forum?

 Have you every heard me say anything good about Google, Chris?

I'm not seeing your daily posts criticising them like you do Apple. Where are they?