> This thread is not full of statistics and data about existing content filtering and surveillance systems and how often they are actually being abused.

It is filled with explanations about why the systems you mention are tangibly different from what Apple is proposing. There is a huge difference between scanning content on-device and scanning content in a cloud. That doesn't mean that scanning content in the cloud can't be dangerous, but it is still tangibly different. There is also a huge difference between a user-inspectable list of malware being blocked in a website and an opaque list of content matches that users can not inspect or debate. There is also a huge difference between a user-inspectable static list and an AI system with questionable accuracy guarantees. And there is a huge difference between a user-controlled malware list that is blocked locally without informing anyone, and a required content list that sends notifications to other people/governments/companies when it is bypassed.

That being said, if you want to look at stats about how accurate AI filters are for explicit material in the examples you mention, there are a ton of stats online about that, and they're mostly all quite bad.

> nobody has any data or facts about how often systems do slide down slippery slopes, or get dragged back up them

There's a lot to unpack in this one sentence, and it would take more time than I'm willing to give, but are you really implying that government surveillance doesn't count as a real slippery slope because sometimes activists reverse the trend?

> Minors will see the prompt "if you do this, your parents will find out" and can choose not to and the parents don't find out. There's an example of the message in the Apple announcement[1]

You misunderstand the concern. The risk is not the child themselves clicking through to the photo (although it would be easy for them to accidentally do so), it's the risk of that data being leaked from other phones because a friend thoughtlessly clicks through the prompt.

> The open letter itself has multiple inaccurate descriptions of how the thing works by the second paragraph to present it as maximally-scary.

Where? Here's the second paragraph:

> Apple's proposed technology works by continuously monitoring photos saved or shared on the user's iPhone, iPad, or Mac. One system detects if a certain number of objectionable photos is detected in iCloud storage and alerts the authorities. Another notifies a child's parents if iMessage is used to send or receive photos that a machine learning algorithm considers to contain nudity.

The only thing I can think of is the word "continuously" which is not strictly inaccurate but could be misinterpreted as saying that the scanning will be constantly running on the same set of photos, and the subtle implication that this scanning will happen to photos "saved", which might be misinterpreted as implying that this scan will happen to photos that aren't uploaded to iCloud. But given that the second sentence immediately clarifies that this is referring to photos uploaded to iCloud, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me to call this misinformation.

> people are jumping straight to "horrible governments will be able to disappear critics" and ignoring that horrible governments already do that and have many much easier ways of doing that.

Hang on a sec. A little while ago you were calling my fears theoretical, now you're admitting that governments routinely abuse this kind of power. You really think it's unreasonable to be cautious about giving them more of this power?

> Does that change your opinion either way?

It does not change my opinion, but at least it's real data, so more of that in these debates please. I'm not denying or rejecting the numbers that the UK lists.

> A less panicky "Open Letter to Apple" might encourage them to make that data public

Holy crud, I would hope this is the bare minimum. Are we really having a debate over whether or not Apple will make that data public? I thought that was just assumed that they would. If that's up in the air right now, then we've sunk really low in the overall conversation about public accountability and human rights.

> which seems an important distinction that you're glossing over in your position "it won't reduce abuse so it shouldn't be built" when the builders are not claiming it will reduce abuse.

I realize this is branching out on in a different direction, but it sure as heck better reduce abuse or its not worth building. CSAM is disgusting, but the primary reason to target it is to reduce abuse. If reducing CSAM doesn't reduce abuse, it's not worth doing and we should focus our efforts elsewhere.

I know this is something that might sound abhorrent to people, but we are having this debate because we care about children. We have to center the debate on the reduction of the creation of CSAM, the reduction of child abuse, and the reduction of gateways into child abuse. Reducing child abuse is the point. We absolutely should demand evidence that these measures reduce child abuse, because reducing child abuse and reducing the creation of CSAM is a really stinking important thing to do.

Which leads back to your other note:

> does it make any difference if they involved people the child knew? If so, what difference do you think that makes?

Yes, it makes a massive difference, because knowing more about where child abusers are coming from and how they interact with their victims makes it easier to target them and will make our efforts more effective. We should care about this stuff.

> It's not the case that "think of the children" leads to political universal agreement of any system, as you're stating.

I think you misunderstand. Nobody who's willing to bring out "think of the children" as a debate killer has ever dropped the argument because they got a concession. That there are some entities (like the EFF) who are willing to reject the argument as a debate killer and look at it through a risk analysis lens does not mean the unquestioned argument of "one child is too many" is any less toxic to real substantive political debate.

> without prohibiting or weakening encryption and in full respect of privacy

I don't want to bash on the EU too hard here, but it has this habit of just kind of tacking onto the end of its laws "but make sure no unintended bad things happen" and then acting like that solves all of their problems. It doesn't mean anything when they add these clauses. This is the same EU that argued for copyright filters and then put on the end of their laws, "but also this shouldn't harm free expression or fair use."

It means very little to me that the EU says they care about privacy. What real, tangible measures did they include to make sure that in practice encryption would not be weakened?

Look, I can do the same thing. Apple should not implement this system, but they should also reduce CSAM. See, I just proved I care about both, exactly as convincingly as the EU! So you know I'm serious about CSAM now, I said that Apple should reduce it. But I predict that you'll "dismiss with something that amounts to 'I won't change my opinion when presented with this fact', yes?"

> There are real things to criticise about this system, the chilling effect of surveillance, the chance of slippery slope progression, the nature of proprietary systems, the chance of mistakes and bugs in code or human interception, the blurred line between "things you own" and "things you own which are closely tied to the manufacturer's storage and messaging systems"

Wait, hold on. Forget literally everything that we were talking about above. This is, like, 90% of what people are criticizing! What else are people criticizing? These are really big concerns! You got to the end of your comment, then suddenly listed out 6 extremely good reasons to oppose this system, and then finished by saying, "but other than those, what's the problem?"