The Goog wrongly told police a man was molesting his infant son after a photo the guy uploaded at the request of the kid's pediatrician got scanned and "identified" as CSAM.
https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/22/allopathic-risk/#snitches-get-stitches
@mcfate while this IS indeed troubling, further troubling is the fact that Apple wants to do this direct on iPhone users devices. No cloud required. The funny part is that all the tech companies claim there's no way theyd get a false positive...
I'm more troubled about things that have actually happened than about things that might.
Scanning for CSAM is an activity I endorse. Google's ham-handedness about reporting it is something entirely different.
I'd like to see some backing on that claim of what "all the tech companies claim".
I only ask because I believe you simply made that up.
@mcfate I agree that there should be some scanning, but the potential for on device scanning is able to be abused and corrupted, easily(e.g. trained to seek political rivals, social groups, protestors, etc).
Ok, fair enough. I did not make up tech companies claiming that they wouldn't have false positives, but if you're too lazy to look it up, I'm too lazy to find exact examples. Point being: there are claims that they wouldn't have false positives, most recently(specifically) apple (claimed)
No, no, no. I'm not being "lazy", there's no obligation on ME to prove YOUR "point" FOR you.
Your claim, your burden. You STILL haven't backed it up. Too "lazy"?
@mcfate ok, I'll adjust it for you. Most notably, apple claimed that there would be minimal false positives ( random search example https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-to-tune-csam-system-to-keep-one-in-a-trillion-false-positive-deactivation-threshold/). There have, in the past, been other tech representatives that have claimed that csam scans would have minimal false positives. That's entirely too murky to quickly find examples for each and every company. I'll use apple only in order to make you happy. There we are: amended for your pleasure
That's pretty weak support for the claim you made, I'd just stop digging at this point if I were you.
@mcfate how's that a weak support? It's one of a multitude of examples, that Apple claimed there would be minimal false positives, that is easily found by a quick search. Look, I'm not sure what you gain by defending tech companies. I'm all for protecting children, I just feel like they should be constantly be scanning your device. What's your story? You seem to endorse it somehow?
Go rant at someone more likely to take you seriously, buddy. Is that clearer?
@mcfate whats clear is that you mistake legitimate concerns of censorship and privacy abuse to be a rant. I may not have every example of every time someone claimed false positives aren't possible (or minimally possible) but so far you haven't even tried to justify your stance. Look, I like seeing you around here. I am not trying to start a fight. I just have concerns. Apparently you don't. Let's agree to disagree. You don't have to talk down to me to prove your point
@MrMalignance
What's clear is that you want to keep bickering, and are now aggrieved that I'm not going to entertain you any further.
Have an oubliette. Don't say you weren't warned.