> The chance of a match being CSAM is not almost certain, though. Not according to Apple. They're publicly claiming a one-in-a-trillion false positive rate fro

> The chance of a match being CSAM is not almost certain, though. Not according to Apple. They're publicly claiming a one-in-a-trillion false positive rate from the automated matching. Either that's blatant false advertising or they're putting known (as in: more likely than not) CSAM in front of their human reviewers. Can't have it both ways. > Further, Apple only gets a low-resolution version of the image. Which makes zero difference with regard to the content being illegal. Do you think they would overlook you possessing an equally low-resolution version of the same photo? > In any case, presumably such issues have been addressed, as neither the FBI nor NCMEC have raised a stink about it. Selective enforcement; what else is new? It's still a huge risk for Apple to take when the ethically superior (and cheaper and simpler) solution would be to encrypt the files on the customer's device, not scanning them first, and store the backups with proper E2E encryption such that Apple has no access to or knowledge of any of the content.