MikeUt

> You have overlooked

No, the comment I replied to overlooked it.

> This is not the same system as the photo-scanning and authority-alerting one.

Which makes fighting child-grooming an even worse argument in favor of the authority-alerting system.

Maybe not lose your job, but the University of California will prevent you from getting one, as they require all job candidates to commit to and have a history of advancing diversity. Conflicting political posts would probably harm your ability to pass this first step of the job application process.

The University’s New Loyalty Oath - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...

Seemed relevant with the news about Apple scanning for child sexual abuse images on user devices. A gray area even in the US, I found Canada particularly notable, since their law makes no distinction between cartoons, and images of real child abuse:

The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production.

> So the M1 has turned me off of Apple products because, quite frankly, I don't want to spend (more) of my time fixing shit a trillion dollar company broke and doesn't care to fix.

What is broken about the M1?

> So: where are the proposals for a better solution?

Better policing and child protective services to catch child abuse at the root, instead of panicking about the digital files it produces? If you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that real-world surveillance has massively increased, which should enable the police to catch predators more easily. Why count only privacy-betraying technology as a "solution", while ignoring the rise of police and surveillance capabilities?

Edit as reply because two downvotes means I am "posting too fast, please slow down" (thank you for respecting me enough to tell me when I can resume posting /s):

> How do you police people reaching out to children via messaging with sexual content?

First, this is one small element of child abuse - you want to prevent child rape, merely being exposed to sexual content is nowhere near severe enough to merit such serious privacy invasion. To prevent the actual abuse, one could use the near-omnipresent facial recognition cameras, license plate readers, messaging metadata, to find when a stranger is messaging or stalking a child, DNA evidence after the fact that is a deterrent to other offenders, phone location data, etc. etc. At first I thought I didn't have to spell this out.

Second, to answer your question: very easily. With parental controls, a decades old technology that is compatible with privacy and open-source. The parent can be the admin of the child's devices, and have access to their otherwise encrypted messages. There is no need to delegate surveillance (of everyone, not just children) to governments and corporations, when we have such a simple, obvious, already existing solution. It frankly boggles the mind how one could overlook it, especially compared to how technically complex Apple's approach is. Does the mention of child abuse simply cause one's thinking to shut down, and accept as gospel anything Apple or the government says, without applying the smallest bit of scrutiny?

You may have paid for the phone, but you are not its owner - it answers to a different master.

Thank you for catching that. Now if only he'd state how much greater, but apparently he ran out of numbers by this point in the article. But he does give us some clues. Earlier in the article he states:

> City-wide, 24% of residents are Black, while 68% of police bike/ped stops are of Blacks.

So Blacks are 2.8x more likely to be stopped. And:

> they represent an even greater percentage of specious police stops

A quick reading might make one think their stops are more than 2.8x more likely to be specious. But a careful reading would only say that more than 68% of all specious stops are of Blacks. How much more? That's cleverly left to the reader's imagination. But throughout the article he heavily implies the unfairness in stops is 180%:

> An unbiased sample would be clustered around the dotted line: a beat whose population is about 40% Black would have about 40% of its police stops be of Blacks.

So "even greater percentage of specious stops" gives the impression that taking specious stops into account worsens the picture. Of these 3 articles, only the Washington Post bothers to give the ratio of specious stops*, which turns out to be... 21% (averaging all states given in that graph, without correcting for population size).

That's still bias, and I'll freely admit it suggests racism. But it's much less than the 180% racism the article tries to imply. It's 8.6x less - nearly an order of magnitude. That's enough for me to say the article is misleading, and given how strategically it ran out of numbers when it came to comparing specious stops, I'm willing to say it is deliberately misleading.

*If you think the situation in Oakland is much different than the states the Post covered, you're free to work out the numbers from the raw data at https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/stop-data

> The vast majority of iPhone users won't consider it a betrayal that they can't send images of child abuse

Probably neither would child abusers, since as soon as they send an image of child abuse, they're much more likely to be caught than if it had stayed on their phone.

> a betrayal by Apple that they allowed their privacy to be so flagrantly violated on their devices up until now.

"Their" devices? Once Apple sells an iPhone, it no longer belongs to Apple. Taking "betrayal" to mean "didn't plant backdoors on other people's computers to catch your abusers" is stretching that word far beyond reason.

The replies are so typical of these discussions. The media float a narrative without bothering to support it with any evidence. When someone actually looks and finds the easily available evidence says the exact opposite, that evidence is attacked and nitpicked as not rigorous enough to overturn the completely unsupported narrative. Where was all this skepticism before?

> Unshared data shouldn't be subject to search. Once it's shared, I can make several cases for an automated scan, but a cloud backup of personal media should be kept private. Our control of our own privacy matters. Not for the slippery slope argument or for the false positive argument, but for its own sake. We shouldn't be assuming the worst of people without cause or warrant.

I have a much simpler rule: Your device should never willingly* betray you.

*With a warrant, police can attempt to plant a bug, but your device should not help them do so.

> These populations have a disproportionate share of minorities, so it would have been plausible that they would have felt like guinea pigs.

That's grossly overstating it.

Whites make up 78% of all employed people, and 72.5% of all healthcare and social assistance workers. They also make up more than 62% of workers in every single subcategory of "healthcare and human assistance". That does not strike me as even remotely under-represented enough that vaccination of healthcare workers could be seen as "whites experimenting on minorities" - not when most healthcare workers are white.

Let me put it this way: 17.4% of healthcare and social assistance workers are black. Meaning that for every one black worker that got vaccinated, more than four white workers would be vaccinated. In what way is it reasonable to see that as "whites treating minorities as guinea pigs"?

Source for employment figures: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm

Edit: If we also look at the "front-line worker who works at target, walmart, grocery stores, etc.", that would correspond to the "Supermarkets and other grocery (except convenience) stores" and "Convenience stores" categories, which are 78.4% and 72.1% white, respectively.

To show that awareness of Tuskegee is, if anything, negatively correlated with vaccination rate, and therefore unlikely to be the driver of lower vaccination rates among Blacks.

Edit: Correction: As crackercrews pointed out, I wrote "negatively correlated", when I should have written "positively correlated".

So do you believe this article should be disregarded, because it uses data that differs from California's and Chicago's?

Or would you instead prefer to only use the parts of this article that support your position, and replace those that don't with data from California and Chicago that does?

I.e. a different study in a different location.

> Am I reading this wrong?

It should be noted that table counts Hispanics as white (as does the 76% of population you cite). It has separate columns for if the offender is Hispanic.

> Another possible explanation is that Blacks are more likely to be criminals, and these stops represent police getting bad guys off the street. [..] City-wide, 68% of no-arrest stops city-wide were of Blacks, the same proportion as arrest stops, which means that Blacks were no more likely to be criminals than others who were stopped.

If, despite being stopped more often, the stop is equally likely to result in an arrest (I'm assuming that's what "no more likely to be criminals than others who were stopped" means, since if they were less likely, the author would surely mention it), doesn't that support this explanation? Of course there are problems with this, since an arrest itself is up to the cop's possibly biased judgement. Which brings me back to

> There is more policing in those beats, they argue, because that’s where the crime’s happening. There’s a logical problem with this argument, because more crime will always be found where more policing is done. But leaving that aside

How quickly he moves on! But there is a solution: look at crimes not affected by over-policing, such as homicide, or look at victimization surveys [1], that don't involve the police. Finding the results is left as an exercise for the reader.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_S...

Could you explain, for those not familiar with Jamie Dimon?

"and then every-so-often batches those metrics out to Apple's servers" means they do know, even if we trust the implementation.

For example, if you publish an ad that only matches the word "fnord", and the metrics reveal that you were shown that ad at least once, Apple can work out that "fnord" appeared in your chat.

> The iAd framework then collects just the impression metrics — how many times each ad was shown to a given user — and then every-so-often batches those metrics out to Apple's servers.

If Apple knows how many times you were shown each ad, and which keywords are associated with that ad, then they are able to reconstruct which keywords appeared in your encrypted chat, and how often.

Are they also a backward firm for not making a hairdresser Barbie until 2008, and a make-up artist Barbie until 2007?

I had typical boy's toys - lego and some action figures. None of them were news anchors, presidents, basketball players, dentists, or famed male scientists. Nor were any surgeons or business executives. Only a few astronauts. Is that also evidence of... something?

> Cherry picked.

The dolls were available to buy. Would you prefer they stopped selling their other models, to focus on these?

Such as surgeon in 1973, astronaut in 1965, and business executive in 1960?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie%27s_careers

> But it's possible that secretly planting a ProxyHam on someone else's network might be interpreted as unauthorized access under America's draconian and vague Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

If that were what caused him to stop the project, he'd be able to say so.

> AMERICA FIRST - good

Only someone completely unfamiliar with western media could honestly write this.

It took Hitler’s conquest of Europe, near-conquest of Britain and, finally, Pearl Harbor to convince a majority of Americans that America First was a mistake. - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/opinion/trump-foreign-pol...

Biden Issues Orders to Dismantle Trump’s ‘America First’ Immigration Agenda - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/us/politics/biden-immigra...

End of the American dream? The dark history of 'America first' [the article comes with a large picture of a KKK hood] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/21/end-of-the-ame...

A Short History of 'America First'. The phrase used by President Trump has been linked to anti-Semitism during World War II. - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-a...

So FB can take over the VR market by over-moderating FB, and making Oculus a requirement to get support. Looks very anti-competitive and illegal.

> Unless it’s glass, fibre, or aluminum, you are lying to yourself if it’s going into the blue bin.

You mean you are being lied to, by well organized groups: https://www.startribune.com/lobbying-group-fights-insurgence...

I was referring more to barring civilians from leaving the city, and shooting at children.

Odd. None of those details were included in the Enemy at the Gates movie, and it specifically focused on snipers.

But is that dehumanization inaccurate? Does it give the wrong impression? The answer to both questions seems to be "no", so he does not need an excuse - his defense is truth.

Why is there no comparison to the rate of removal of hateful posts targeting other groups? Websites that document only violence against whites, and ignoring other groups, are rightly condemned as racist. But when the Center for Countering Digital Hate does something equivalent, they're presented as a neutral, trustworthy party.