3 ms·

Apple's proposed system did scanning on your device, whereas google's system does scanning in the cloud. That is the distinction. A person's own hardware should

• GeekyBear 4y ago
  > Apple's proposed system did scanning on your device, whereas google's system does scanning in the cloud. That is the distinction. No, the distinction is that Apple's proposed system only scanned photos you uploaded to publicly accessible iCloud albums and did so in a way that not even they had access to the results until you crossed the "99 images that match known kiddie porn" threshold. Even then, they had an actual human being review the situation to make sure there weren't 99 false positives on a single account before calling the police. There was absolutely no possibility of calling the police for a single false positive, which is what Google is already doing today.
  • syrrim 4y ago
    False positives are inherent to the justice system. While unfortunate, they do not cross any lines or send us down any slippery slopes. They are priced in. Thus, "what about google" is a mere "what-about-ism". People are ocassionally falsely accused, charged, and even convicted of crimes. That is not what is under discussion here.
    • GeekyBear 4y ago
      > False positives are inherent to the justice system This is in no way an excuse for Google calling the police to report child abuse because their algorithm made a bad call, and Google doesn't want to hire human beings who can intervene when their algorithms very frequently screw up.
      • syrrim 4y ago
        Google is also bad. We are agreed on that.
    • atkailash 4y ago