4 ms·
This isn't a question about condoning child abuse. It's a question of doing probabilistic detection of someone possessing "objectionable content". Not sharing,
by bostik 5y ago
This isn't a question about condoning child abuse. It's a question of doing probabilistic detection of someone possessing "objectionable content". Not sharing, not storing - possessing. This system, once deployed, will be used for other purposes. Just look at the history of every other technology supposedly built to combat CP. They all have expanded in scope.
Trying to frame the question along the usual slippery slope arguments implicitly sets up anyone critisicing the mechanism as a supporter of fundamentally objectionable content.
- intended 5y agoSure, and i have no objection to what you are saying. This thread however was where I was making a separate point that helps this discussion by removing confusion or assumptions on how Apple’s proposal works. Perhaps you may have misread what I was saying ?
- bostik 5y agoSorry about the really long delay with answer, the week got better of me. Your original post posited a reasonable question, but I felt the details were somewhat muddled. The reason I reacted and answered was that I have seen this style of questioning elsewhere before. The way you finished off was actually a little alarming: it'd be really easy to drop in with a followup that in turn would look like the other person was trying to defend the indefensible. With my original reply I attempted to defuse that potential. The issue is incendiary enough without people willingly misunderstanding each other.