In article <9KednXl-OM2zLI_8nZ2dnUU78fPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.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).

yep.

they are the *only* entity legally allowed to actually have such
images, which are used to track down and prosecute offenders who have
them.

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 13:22:18 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> In article <sero2t$pla$1...@hunterbd.eternal-september.org>, David Brooks
> <Dav...@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

"I hear and obey the will of Apple!" Paraphrase from Startrek.

In article <00d0b46f-7a94-4bfd-8c18-209993ed12cdn@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "I hear and obey the will of Apple!" Paraphrase from Startrek.
>

you might want to rewatch star trek, and more importantly, lay off the
drugs before you overdose.

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 14:20:16 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
> (in article<333f27cd-0d16-4585...@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/>
>

Not really, I've heard better explanations 10 years ago regarding defining porn, children and what
a pornagraphic image/picture is.
I also noticed that I think it was fox or CNN pixelated the part of teh image of womens breasts when one of Picasso
paintings went up for auction. BBC and other news outlets didn;t seem to have a problem with
the image.

I can mostly understand teh technical side it's the social or anti-social bit that I find the interesting point.

> "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

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 15:59:59 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <333f27cd-0d16-4585...@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 ?
> ncmec decides, not apple.

Yes I know.

I just wonder who decides saying ncmec decides, doesn;t really tell me much.

>
> they maintain a database of child porn images.

So they decide what is and isn;t porn or what is or isn;t a child.

Here in the UK it's not just children that are protected from such things.
if you're 30 and have have mental problems you are also protected even though you aren't considered a child.

The term child is NOT just age related but whther or not you are mature enough to consent to
what is actually going on.

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

I know.

I do hope the pictures flagged as a baby on my iPad (by whatever method was used)
if questioned they realise that it's not a baby but my white cat who was about 10 years old
curled up, so a senior citizen too in cat terms.
Or pornagraphic like picassos painting are ;-)

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 23:40:10 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 13:22:18 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> > In article <sero2t$pla$1...@hunterbd.eternal-september.org>, David Brooks
> > <Dav...@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
> "I hear and obey the will of Apple!" Paraphrase from Startrek.

Sounds more like an extract from the Bible than star trek, and I've watched more star trek
than read the bible.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/wiersbe-be-bible-study/3-hear-obey-lord-vv-7b-11

In article <2ec3d30c-d9a8-4f3b-8b51-b74e5a5184f2n@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.
>
> Yes I know.

not based on anything you've posted so far.

> I just wonder who decides saying ncmec decides, doesn;t really tell me much.

further proof you have zero understanding how it works

> > they maintain a database of child porn images.
>
> So they decide what is and isn;t porn or what is or isn;t a child.

no, they keep track of child porn. other photos are not their concern.

> Here in the UK it's not just children that are protected from such things.
> if you're 30 and have have mental problems you are also protected even though
> you aren't considered a child.

the person viewing the photo is not the issue.

additional proof you have zero understanding how it works

> The term child is NOT just age related but whther or not you are mature
> enough to consent to
> what is actually going on.

sounds like you're disqualified.

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

not based on anything you've written

> I do hope the pictures flagged as a baby on my iPad (by whatever method was
> used)
> if questioned they realise that it's not a baby but my white cat who was
> about 10 years old
> curled up, so a senior citizen too in cat terms.
> Or pornagraphic like picassos painting are ;-)

even more proof you have zero understanding how it works

On 9/08/2021 2:49 PM, 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?
>

The subject isn't 'pornographic'. The subject is 'illegal'.

geoff

In article <r4ednbJr1O0mlIr8nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> 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?
> >
>
> The subject isn't 'pornographic'. The subject is 'illegal'.

*very* illegal.

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

Frying pan, fire; Apple "clarifies" its message:

"Apple decided to implement a similar process (as Google applies to the "cloud"), but said it would do the image-matching on a user's iPhone or iPad, before it was uploaded to iCloud."

Likely what it will then do is turn on the selfie camera, thought it won't show on the phone and photograph the person using the phone and send it to authorities. Ten minutes later,
you door is broken down by the cops. The fear of some apparently is that this software could be co-opt somehow by governments or other agencies and "re-tuned" to find all kinds
of images, sounds, etc., that might indicate you've run afoul of the all-mighty STATE!

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58206543

In article <cbb76423-a8bd-43d2-8fa1-064264761804n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Frying pan, fire; Apple "clarifies" its message:
>
> "Apple decided to implement a similar process (as Google applies to the
> "cloud"), but said it would do the image-matching on a user's iPhone or iPad,
> before it was uploaded to iCloud."

correct.

> Likely what it will then do is turn on the selfie camera, thought it won't
> show on the phone and photograph the person using the phone and send it to
> authorities. Ten minutes later,
> you door is broken down by the cops. The fear of some apparently is that
> this software could be co-opt somehow by governments or other agencies and
> "re-tuned" to find all kinds
> of images, sounds, etc., that might indicate you've run afoul of the
> all-mighty STATE!

no.

whatever drugs your using, you need to cut back. a lot. it's greatly
affecting your ability to form coherent thoughts, and not in a good
way.

On 14/08/2021 04:52, 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
>
> Frying pan, fire; Apple "clarifies" its message:
>
> "Apple decided to implement a similar process (as Google applies to the "cloud"), but said it would do the image-matching on a user's iPhone or iPad, before it was uploaded to iCloud."
>
I guess maybe they are doing that to defend themselves of the possible
charge of "making indecent images", as it is known in the UK, by
uploading it to their server. (IIRC there is an exemption for ISPs in UK
legislation, but someone said earlier that in the USA only that "child
protection agency" had an exemption).

On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 17:05:54 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <2ec3d30c-d9a8-4f3b...@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 ?
> > > ncmec decides, not apple.
> >
> > Yes I know.
> not based on anything you've posted so far.

according to you that is, which isn't saying much.
You do know that porn existed before Apple started producing hardware.

> > I just wonder who decides saying ncmec decides, doesn;t really tell me much.
> further proof you have zero understanding how it works

But more than you do. But unlike you I don't believe I know it all.

> > > they maintain a database of child porn images.
> >
> > So they decide what is and isn;t porn or what is or isn;t a child.
> no, they keep track of child porn. other photos are not their concern.

But they have to decide on child porn.
Is a picture of a 5 year girl topless in a bath porn ?
You do know that porn is sited when an image is produced with teh intent to secually arouse
and little to do with nudity.
Perhaps you can state the defintion of a child for me.
Because in teh UK at the age of 17 you are NOT considered a child.

I think in some states of the USA a 14 year old can own a rifle or shotgun but can't have sex.
> > Here in the UK it's not just children that are protected from such things.
> > if you're 30 and have have mental problems you are also protected even though
> > you aren't considered a child.
> the person viewing the photo is not the issue.

But the person in it is are they a child and is the person viewing a child.
That is also why you have guidence on ages to flim viewing.
It also includes violence and horror.

>
> additional proof you have zero understanding how it works
> > The term child is NOT just age related but whther or not you are mature
> > enough to consent to
> > what is actually going on.
> sounds like you're disqualified.

Sounds like you haven't a clue.

> > > it's obviously not going to be every possible such image, nor does it
> > > need to be.
> >
> > I know.
> not based on anything you've written

Thats what happens when you think outside your very limit knowledge base.

> > I do hope the pictures flagged as a baby on my iPad (by whatever method was
> > used)
> > if questioned they realise that it's not a baby but my white cat who was
> > about 10 years old
> > curled up, so a senior citizen too in cat terms.
> > Or pornagraphic like picassos painting are ;-)
> even more proof you have zero understanding how it works

seems like there's an annoying echo are you alone in a large room.

In article <75623f37-df6d-4eda-a946-8bcff7e9c71fn@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > and how do they decide what goes in the database ?
> > > > ncmec decides, not apple.
> > >
> > > Yes I know.
> > not based on anything you've posted so far.
>
> according to you that is, which isn't saying much.

when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

> You do know that porn existed before Apple started producing hardware.

porn isn't the issue.

the rest of your mindless rambling snipped.

go read apple's white papers on what they're actually doing before more
stupid shit, not that it will prevent that.

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 14:48:51 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <75623f37-df6d-4eda...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > and how do they decide what goes in the database ?
> > > > > ncmec decides, not apple.
> > > >
> > > > Yes I know.
> > > not based on anything you've posted so far.
> >
> > according to you that is, which isn't saying much.
> when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I'm not the one in the hole, I'm digging it for you.

> > You do know that porn existed before Apple started producing hardware.
> porn isn't the issue.
> the rest of your mindless rambling snipped.

Things you don't understand and most likely never will.

>
> go read apple's white papers on what they're actually doing before more
> stupid shit, not that it will prevent that.

I'm not talking about Apple you moron.
Apple do NOT have any say regarding who is considered a child.
Apple do NOT have any say regarding what is child abuse or exploitation.
Apple do NOT have any say regarding who can own a gun, drive vote or buy alcohol
..

I wanted to know what the definition of a child is according to the NCMEC
and whether that will alter depending on the country the child is in when
the exploition occurs in.
In the UK a 17 year old is NOT considered a child
In other countries ages of consent vary quite a bit too as do the age of a child
and what they legally can do, strange that I think it;s montana you can own a gun but not pose
in a sexual manor.

On 18/08/2021 12:33 am, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 14:48:51 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>> In article <75623f37-df6d-4eda...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> and how do they decide what goes in the database ?
>>>>>> ncmec decides, not apple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I know.
>>>> not based on anything you've posted so far.
>>>
>>> according to you that is, which isn't saying much.
>> when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
>
> I'm not the one in the hole, I'm digging it for you.
>
>>> You do know that porn existed before Apple started producing hardware.
>> porn isn't the issue.
>> the rest of your mindless rambling snipped.
>
> Things you don't understand and most likely never will.
>
>>
>> go read apple's white papers on what they're actually doing before more
>> stupid shit, not that it will prevent that.
>
> I'm not talking about Apple you moron.
> Apple do NOT have any say regarding who is considered a child.
> Apple do NOT have any say regarding what is child abuse or exploitation.
> Apple do NOT have any say regarding who can own a gun, drive vote or buy alcohol
> .
>
> I wanted to know what the definition of a child is according to the NCMEC
> and whether that will alter depending on the country the child is in when
> the exploition occurs in.
> In the UK a 17 year old is NOT considered a child
> In other countries ages of consent vary quite a bit too as do the age of a child
> and what they legally can do, strange that I think it;s montana you can own a gun but not pose
> in a sexual manor.

And in Denmark you could fuck animals, right up until 2015 !

geoff

In article <YOadne4YX6LB0YH8nZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

>
> And in Denmark you could fuck animals, right up until 2015 !

should we be concerned you know this? is there something you're not
telling us?

On 18/08/2021 12:15 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <YOadne4YX6LB0YH8nZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> And in Denmark you could fuck animals, right up until 2015 !
>
> should we be concerned you know this? is there something you're not
> telling us?
>

I didn't go to Denmark when it was apparently a burgeoning sex-tourism
attraction. So no.

geoff