5 ms·
> Then where are the news reports or articles of these false positives that would have shown up within the past decade?... Is there even a single verifiable re
by markdown 5y ago
> Then where are the news reports or articles of these false positives that would have shown up within the past decade?... Is there even a single verifiable report of such a false positive? I feel that with the amount of attention brought to this issue, if there was such a report then it probably would have been brought up by now.
Positives get reviewed by humans, at which point false positives are identified and discarded. We would not hear about them, and there would not be any reporting about them in the press.
You might think that this is the system working as intended, but I do not and would never consent to Apple giving my photos to some random anon to look at.
- silverpepsi 5y ago>Positives get reviewed by humans, at which point false positives are identified and discarded. Let's not forget, this part only happens if you are lucky. You get the wrong photo reviewer and you catch your girlfriend with the wrong type of lighting that makes her look as if she could pass for 17 and you're going to have the police show up at your work and cuff you, demanding to know who this person of interest is. Adult males have been tried for possession of CSAM for having images of well-known absolutely above 18 adult video stars: https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/ https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom...
- nl 5y agoBut this isn't from automatic scanning. This is from dumb police work - one could actually argue that the scanning approach would have saved the person from this problem.
- emodendroket 5y agoThe privacy violation here is smaller than the one we all used to have to go through to get photos developed at all.
- stickfigure 5y agoExactly why people avoided taking naughty pictures with film. Digital, on the other hand, is private. And should remain so.
- emodendroket 5y agoAccording to an article I read this morning in the WSJ, you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud, at which point it would be flagged for review, and even then only the flagged images would be shown to the reviewer. This strikes me as not a serious privacy risk. Article here: https://apple.news/AhVzAY--DT36Oz22W7taL9Q https://apple.news/AhVzAY--DT36Oz22W7taL9Q
- markdown 5y ago> you would have to upload about 30 matching images to iCloud For now.
- emodendroket 5y agoIf your concern was that they might at some future point change their policies and do something objectionable then you should not be using iCloud at all.
- markdown 5y ago"If you're concerned that a bad thing might happen some day, you shouldn't today oppose things that pave the way for that bad thing happening." "If you're concerned that a hurricane might blow your house over some day, you shouldn't build one today." "If you're concerned that your child might grow up to be a psychopath, you shouldn't have kids."
- xdennis 5y agoTim Apple doesn't have the right to see a single one of my photos, let alone thirty. How is Apple going compensate the innocent people?
- heavyset_go 5y agoPeople could and did develop their own photos.