Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495

On 07/08/2021 09:19, RichA wrote:
> Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
> violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
>

Well *at the moment* they are only talking about files that match the
hashes of recognised "dodgy images" from an official database. Then
someone looks at them to check, before reporting. I think I am happy
with that, because it should reduce the amount of offending.

There are always going to be interesting new issues with new technology.
To my mind cloud storage has enormous benefits. But I am still very glad
that we have Snowdens.

In article <n7qdnX7_gJQF9pP8nZ2dnUU78c3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:

> Well *at the moment* they are only talking about files that match the
> hashes of recognised "dodgy images" from an official database. Then
> someone looks at them to check, before reporting. I think I am happy
> with that, because it should reduce the amount of offending.

and only if they're uploaded to apple.

On 07/08/2021 13:55, nospam wrote:
> In article <n7qdnX7_gJQF9pP8nZ2dnUU78c3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> Well *at the moment* they are only talking about files that match the
>> hashes of recognised "dodgy images" from an official database. Then
>> someone looks at them to check, before reporting. I think I am happy
>> with that, because it should reduce the amount of offending.
>
> and only if they're uploaded to apple.
>
So that must be nearly half the Western world then. Can you see Google
being that far behind, if threatened by legal action?

Of course the more skilled will avoid the obvious traps. But ultimately
the boundaries have been set by society, not by Apple.

In article <rtGdnZbMZNi-FZP8nZ2dnUU78RvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:

> >> Well *at the moment* they are only talking about files that match the
> >> hashes of recognised "dodgy images" from an official database. Then
> >> someone looks at them to check, before reporting. I think I am happy
> >> with that, because it should reduce the amount of offending.
> >
> > and only if they're uploaded to apple.
> >
> So that must be nearly half the Western world then. Can you see Google
> being that far behind, if threatened by legal action?

google has been verifying images for years, so has facebook, twitter,
dropbox and just about everyone else.

apple is actually late to the game.

On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 04:19:30 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
> violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495

https://petapixel.com/2021/08/06/whatsapps-head-calls-apples-child-safety-update-surveillance/

On 07/08/2021 15:48, RichA wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 04:19:30 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
>> violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
>
> https://petapixel.com/2021/08/06/whatsapps-head-calls-apples-child-safety-update-surveillance/
>
No, because if you read the original BBC post it is clear that Apple is
*only* looking for *known* CSAM pictures; not trying to assess without
reference whether a given image has suspicious attributes.

Petapixel / WhatsApp does not make this distinction.

On 7/08/2021 8:19 pm, RichA wrote:
> Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
> violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
>

Oh privacy. Next thing is they'll be wanting to know where you go all
day ....

geoff

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 01:19:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA posted:-

> Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their
> customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life.
> But inevitably, there will be violations of privacy with this effort
> so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath
> or something had better be very wary.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
>

And where does it stop? Who knows what Apple might be spying on as
well. Or later on decides to delete images of cats & dogs (just as an
example of what could be done)?

In article <inaovhF6ds4U1@mid.individual.net>, James Last plays in
Miami < spam@no> wrote:

> And where does it stop? Who knows what Apple might be spying on as
> well.

they're not spying on anything.

you might want to look at what google, facebook, etc. are doing, if
you're worried about spying.

> Or later on decides to delete images of cats & dogs (just as an
> example of what could be done)?

not a good example, since nothing is deleted, nor is that even possible.

On 8/08/2021 12:51 pm, geoff wrote:
> On 7/08/2021 8:19 pm, RichA wrote:
>> Yes, we all know;  rooting out child pornographers and their customers
>> is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life.  But
>> inevitably, there will be
>> violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent
>> pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be
>> very wary.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
>>
>
> Oh privacy. Next thing is they'll be wanting to know where you go all
> day ....
>
> geoff

And then they might even want to know what you spend your money on !
Shock - horror.

geoff

In article <8qWdnbwzja_P_Y38nZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

>
> And then they might even want to know what you spend your money on !
> Shock - horror.

banks, stores and advertisers already do.

On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 07:16:45 UTC-4, newshound wrote:
> On 07/08/2021 09:19, RichA wrote:
> > Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
> > violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
> >
> Well *at the moment* they are only talking about files that match the
> hashes of recognised "dodgy images" from an official database. Then
> someone looks at them to check, before reporting. I think I am happy
> with that, because it should reduce the amount of offending.
>
> There are always going to be interesting new issues with new technology.
> To my mind cloud storage has enormous benefits. But I am still very glad
> that we have Snowdens.

Meanwhile, some millenial i.d.s images as pornographic, they aren't, you get charged by cops, you spend $50,000 in court and win, your reputation is shot as well.
Fair?

On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 20:52:02 UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 7/08/2021 8:19 pm, RichA wrote:
> > Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
> > violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
> >
> Oh privacy. Next thing is they'll be wanting to know where you go all
> day ....
>
> geoff

Funny you should say that....

The U.S. Senate plans to take a vote on the infrastructure bill on
Saturday, according to the best available reports for you late-to-the-party
fact-checkers. The bill as it's currently written is fiscally disastrous,
according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and removes what's left
of any vestige of privacy in your own private vehicle.

If the 2021 infrastructure bill passes, which it may due to the help of
Republican senators who apparently couldn't care less about our privacy, it
will likely become a rhetorical trope the likes of which hasn't been seen
since the passage of the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of
2001"-- otherwise known as the USA-PATRIOT Act.

Now, here's what the bill would do to you inside and outside your car. They
call it a "pilot" program. That's just government talk for we're not going
to screw all of you yet.

The Intercept interviewed the policy counsel at the Lefty-organization
Demand Progress. He characterized a key piece of the legislation as "mass
surveillance".

"It's concerning to see the advancement of a plan that appears to depend on
the government's mass surveillance of vehicles' location simply to
function," said Sean Vitka, policy counsel at Demand Progress.

Gosh, why would that be a problem?

The Truth About Cars website reports that the bill sets in motion the
infrastructure to network your car with "automated traffic enforcement
hubs, networked with speed and stoplight cameras (similar to what currently
exists in China)".

Per Mile Taxes

That "mass surveillance" is part of a system to keep track of where and how
much you drive, as if that's any of their beeswax. But they'll use it
against you eventually. No doubt it would have 4th Amendment implications.

The bill also requires that breathalyzers-- which detect too much alcohol
but not weed or other substances-- be installed in all vehicles.

You may think this is a grand idea-- it's for safety after all-- But look
at what has to happen for it to "work".

Cockpit Cameras and Facial Recognition?

Cockpit cameras check to make sure your sober buddy isn't blowing into the
contraption for you and facial recognition software will "track face and
eye movements in case you’'e planning to get drunk *while* driving."

You might think that, well, come on now, Tesla already has cameras in the
cockpit and my new fancy car comes with a luxury add-on package that
includes a camera.

Good for you. But you chose that. This bill requires it.

The auto industry is all-in on the new safety mechanisms, which, of course,
you'll pay extra for.

From The Truth About Cars:

"The auto industry has long been committed to supporting public and private
efforts to address this tragic threat to road safety," John Bozzella, CEO
of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, stated. "This legislation
furthers the possibility for advanced technologies to help address the risk
of impaired driving."

In addition to the breath machines and cameras, Time magazine reports that
the bill contains "infrared touch tests on ignition buttons" to keep people
from starting the car if they don't pass muster.

Driving You to Distraction

The facial recognition/cockpit cameras are also designed to stop you from
being "distracted" in whatever form the car poobahs dictate.

It's meant, as The New York Post reports, "to detect erratic driving and
gauge driver distraction by measuring when a driver's eyes leave the road."

Does singing in the car count? Checking your mirrors? Talking to your
passengers? We're sure all of it will go on your permanent record, in
whatever form that may eventually take, and be given over to the
"authorities" or insurance company to use against you someday.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure this out, so don't say you weren't
warned.

Congressional Car Crash

And in yet another display of the "we don’t know what we're doing but we're
voting for it anyway" mindset that has taken over the Congress, the bill
contains language that says if Department of Transportation bureaucrats
"can't agree on the specifics of the new regulations governing the
technology within 10 years, they will have to explain to Congress why not."

What fresh hell is that? Congress passes a ghost bill and lets the
unelected bureaucrats fill in the blanks. Is there any limiting principle
involved in this legislation whatsoever? Well, no, of course. Or they'll
let us know in ten years. What happens if they can't come up with new
regulations in ten years?

Critical Race Car Driving

The infrastructure bill introduces the idea of charging a per-mile tax for
the privilege of driving your car on their infrastructure-- "you didn't
build that!"-- because those bureaucrats can't jack enough of your money
from gas taxes to do their jobs of maintaining freeways.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg requires the Treasury Department to
set up a way to collect your per-mile fees-- which doesn't sound very
pilot-ey to me-- and seeks "volunteers" to give the per mile program a
whirl.

The "pilot" program with a $10 million a year ad budget would also
establish an apparently permanent advisory board that has "equity" as a
goal. From The Epoch Times:

"The advisory body would be required to include as members 'at a minimum'
representatives from state departments of transportation, the trucking
industry, data security experts 'with expertise in personal privacy,'
academic experts on surface transportation, consumer advocates, operators
of toll systems, owners of motor vehicle fleets, and tribal
representatives. The advisory body would also include 'advocacy groups
focused on equity', as well as 'any other representatives or entities, as
determined appropriate by [Buttigieg]'."

The proposal doesn't elaborate on why a transportation tax advisory board
should have members representing nonprofit advocacy groups dedicated to
"equity", which is a term often used by advocates of the divisive political
and social perspective known as critical race theory.

In article <707b2778-0abf-40c1-a950-882972e13a30n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> Meanwhile, some millenial i.d.s images as pornographic, they aren't, you get
> charged by cops, you spend $50,000 in court and win, your reputation is shot as well.
> Fair?

it doesn't work that way.

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 03:49:13 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 August 2021 at 07:16:45 UTC-4, newshound wrote:
> > On 07/08/2021 09:19, RichA wrote:
> > > Yes, we all know; rooting out child pornographers and their customers is a valid effort, they should all be in jail for life. But inevitably, there will be
> > > violations of privacy with this effort so photogs who take innocent pictures of their kids in a bubble bath or something had better be very wary.
> > >
> > > https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58124495
> > >
> > Well *at the moment* they are only talking about files that match the
> > hashes of recognised "dodgy images" from an official database. Then
> > someone looks at them to check, before reporting. I think I am happy
> > with that, because it should reduce the amount of offending.
> >
> > There are always going to be interesting new issues with new technology.
> > To my mind cloud storage has enormous benefits. But I am still very glad
> > that we have Snowdens.
> Meanwhile, some millenial i.d.s images as pornographic, they aren't, you get charged by cops, you spend $50,000 in court and win, your reputation is shot as well.
> Fair?

It depends on what they decide is pornagraphic, about 20 years ago a friend who handed his negs in to get developed/printed by Boots (UK chemist chain) kept them back and asked for him to collect them in person and the person in the photo.
So nothing new in victorian times & before even sight of a womens ankle was risky.
So nothing new porn, will still be photographed and if you don't share them or back them up on-line no one will know about them.

And also remmeber Apple doesn't track you

In article <c3833d35-7a28-495b-a376-cb3666178ed4n@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> It depends on what they decide is pornagraphic,

nope. it's whatever is in the csam database.

> about 20 years ago a friend
> who handed his negs in to get developed/printed by Boots (UK chemist chain)
> kept them back and asked for him to collect them in person and the person in
> the photo.
> So nothing new in victorian times & before even sight of a womens ankle was
> risky.
> So nothing new porn, will still be photographed and if you don't share them
> or back them up on-line no one will know about them.

porn isn't the issue.

what they're looking for is known child porn.

>
> And also remmeber Apple doesn't track you

they don't.

On 09/08/2021 15:09, nospam wrote:
> In article <c3833d35-7a28-495b-a376-cb3666178ed4n@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It depends on what they decide is pornagraphic,
>
> nope. it's whatever is in the csam database.
>
>> about 20 years ago a friend
>> who handed his negs in to get developed/printed by Boots (UK chemist chain)
>> kept them back and asked for him to collect them in person and the person in
>> the photo.
>> So nothing new in victorian times & before even sight of a womens ankle was
>> risky.
>> So nothing new porn, will still be photographed and if you don't share them
>> or back them up on-line no one will know about them.
>
> porn isn't the issue.
>
> what they're looking for is known child porn.
>
>>
>> And also remmeber Apple doesn't track you
>
> they don't.

Apple knows EXACTLY where my Apple devices are located.

In article <serfel$kj5$2@hunterbd.eternal-september.org>, David Brooks
<DavidB@nomale.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> And also remmeber Apple doesn't track you
> >
> > they don't.
>
> Apple knows EXACTLY where my Apple devices are located.

whooooooooosh.

but since they do, maybe they'll show up at your door and put you out
of your misery and improve the planet.

On 09/08/2021 16:43, nospam wrote:
> In article <serfel$kj5$2@hunterbd.eternal-september.org>, David Brooks
> <DavidB@nomale.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> And also remmeber Apple doesn't track you
>>>
>>> they don't.
>>
>> Apple knows EXACTLY where my Apple devices are located.
>
> whooooooooosh.
>
> but since they do, maybe they'll show up at your door and put you out
> of your misery and improve the planet.

<sigh>

What answer would REAL Apple staff give to this question?

https://x704.net/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9276

In article <sero2t$pla$1@hunterbd.eternal-september.org>, David Brooks
<DavidB@nomale.invalid> wrote:

>
> What answer would REAL Apple staff give to this question?

they would tell you to fuck off and die a slow painful death.

> https://x

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 15:09:42 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <c3833d35-7a28-495b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It depends on what they decide is pornagraphic,
> nope. it's whatever is in the csam database.

and how do they decide what goes in the database ?

> > about 20 years ago a friend
> > who handed his negs in to get developed/printed by Boots (UK chemist chain)
> > kept them back and asked for him to collect them in person and the person in
> > the photo.
> > So nothing new in victorian times & before even sight of a womens ankle was
> > risky.
> > So nothing new porn, will still be photographed and if you don't share them
> > or back them up on-line no one will know about them.
> porn isn't the issue.

Defining it is.
In the UK (documentry about 5 years ago) if you drew an image that
could be viewed as pornagraphic then it was and this included stick figures.

>
> what they're looking for is known child porn.

which is defined by someone.
In japan taking and filming pictures of very young children as young as 6 and gettign adults to pay for them isn't condidered wrong
or porn. Look up JK cafes.

And as for children well the UK is a bit more free than the US is
Other countries too have differnt ideas at which age a person is no longer a child.

> > And also remmeber Apple doesn't track you, we allow 16 & 17 yearolds to decide who they have sex with
as our age of consent is 16 for the UK in the US some states it is 18.
Which is why I don;t quite understand this thing regarding Prince Andrew and the 17 year-old.

So if looking at what is child porn you have to decide what porn is and what a child is
and the country it is posted in and viewed in I assume.

> they don't.

On Aug 10, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
(in article<333f27cd-0d16-4585-9772-b34232e05996n@googlegroups.com>):

> On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 15:09:42 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> > In article<c3833d35-7a28-495b...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It depends on what they decide is pornagraphic,
> > nope. it's whatever is in the csam database.
>
> and how do they decide what goes in the database ?

This might help explain things:
<https://petapixel.com/2021/08/08/is-apple-actually-going-to-snoop-on-your-photos/>

"First, we need to understand what a hash is. Images connected to iCloud Photos are analyzed on the device and a unique number is assigned to it. The technology is clever enough that if you edit a photo through cropping or filters, the same number is assigned to it.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provided Apple a list of hashes that are known CSAM photos. If your photo does not match that hash, the system moves on. The actual photo isn’t visible to anyone.

If a match is found, that match is added to a database against your iCloud account. If that database grows to a number (the specifications of which are not publicly known), Apple disables your iCloud account and send a report to the NCMEC.”

"So is Apple Snooping on your photos in this scenario? Maybe. It depends on what you consider snooping. Apple can’t see your photographs, only the hash and then they check that hash against a known CSAM hash.”

"It is worth remembering that all Android and Apple built devices already analyze your photos to be able to make them searchable. If you have a pet, type pet into the search box and pets appear. Analyzing photos is not a new technology, but CSAM detection extends the capabilities for the purposes of what Apple see as the common good."

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article <333f27cd-0d16-4585-9772-b34232e05996n@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > It depends on what they decide is pornagraphic,
> > nope. it's whatever is in the csam database.
>
> and how do they decide what goes in the database ?

ncmec decides, not apple.

they maintain a database of child porn images.

it's obviously not going to be every possible such image, nor does it
need to be.

On 10/08/2021 15:59, nospam wrote:
> In article <333f27cd-0d16-4585-9772-b34232e05996n@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> It depends on what they decide is pornagraphic,
>>> nope. it's whatever is in the csam database.
>>
>> and how do they decide what goes in the database ?
>
> ncmec decides, not apple.
>
> they maintain a database of child porn images.
>
> it's obviously not going to be every possible such image, nor does it
> need to be.
>
According to Wikipedia, NCMEC is primarily funded by the US Justice
Department, and liaises with Law Enforcement. Presumably, they have
access to material which is seized when people are prosecuted, and
therefore will rapidly build up a database of "popular" images. I gather
that many "collectors" have large numbers of images, and since "popular"
ones are almost by definition widespread, there is a good chance that
most collectors will have some of them. So the detection of offenders
should be very efficient (assuming the hashing is well designed).