Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

On 2024-07-26 09:11, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2024-07-26, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 24/07/2024 22:35, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2024-07-24, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:20:19 -0000 (UTC) :
>

The NSPCC should really be complaining at how ineffectual the tech
companies are rather than complain at Apple for not sending
millions of photos to already overwhelmed authorities.

>
For all that is in the news stories, it could be ZERO convictions
resulted.
>
Think about that.
>
Is it worth everyone's loss of privacy for maybe zero gain in child
safety?

>
Apple's solution wouldn't have resulted in any additional loss of
privacy

>
Actually, Apple could not guarantee that, and there was a non-zero
chance that false positive matches would result in privacy
violations.

>
True. The balance of risk was proportionate, however. Much moreso than
the current system.

 Absolutely. I'm just of the opinion if one innocent person is harmed,
that's one too many. Would you want to be that unlucky innocent person
who has to deal with charges, a potential criminal sexual violation on
your record, and all that comes with it? I certainly wouldn't.
 

Except that Apple's system wouldn't automatically trigger charges.
An actual human would review the images in question...
...AND since they were comparing images against KNOWN CSAM, false positives would naturally be very few to begin with.