On 10 Aug 2021 at 12:44:45 AM, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> Where is that mail scanning you speak of being performed?
>>
>
> On Google's servers of course.

But the idiot said Google was doing what Apple was doing.
But you just said Google is not scanning that email on your device.

Did he lie?
Or is he just stupid?

Either way, he was wrong.
--
Cheers, Rob

On 08/08/2021 20:29, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Of course not. He's just here representing the "Apple: BAD!!!" crew.

If someone who owns an iPhone like badgolferman doesn't like one thing Apple
does, why do you automatically assume it means he doesn't like Apple?

Is your thought process really that simpleton shallow?

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 20:30:37 -0400, nospam wrote:
> nobody is forcing anyone to scan the phone.

You just bullshitted us saying Apple was forced by LE to scan on the iPhone.

> apple matches *only* what the user chooses to upload to their servers.

It's you who is deflecting the fact you're constantly trying to bullshit us.

> anything not uploaded is not scanned, matched or anything else.

You're still bullshitting us.
Apple was NOT forced by LE to scan on the iPhone despite all your bullshit.

> you want a cite? here you go:
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A>
> 18 U.S. Code � 2258A - Reporting requirements of providers

As I said to you before and which you didn't understand.
Apple was complying with the law before they started scanning on the iPhone.

You bullshitted us by saying LE forced Apple to scan on our iPhones.

Show us a single citation from LE that says Apple was forced to scan on our
iPhones in order to comply with the law?

You can't.
You are a bullshitter.

"Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

| > ?? Remote storage is not publishing.
| | Legally, it is.
|

You're making no sense. Publishing means making information
of some kind available to the public. Online storage is meant
to be a safe place to put your files, where others can't take
them.

On 8 Aug 2021 20:33:39 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Of course. That is the beauty of math, you can check it, and you get
> the same answer every time. You can hand it off to someone else, and
> they get the same answer too.

Apple says that they test iOS release software for zero defects.

The math (from Apple) is impeccable.
iOS releases always pass Apple QA with zero defects.

Zero defects in every iOS release.
Impressive math from Apple, isn't it?

Then read this math which is NOT from Apple.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/ios-zero-day-zerodium-high-supply/
Stop sending us zero-day iOS exploits.
We have too many already.

On 8 Aug 2021 20:28:33 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> I haven't seen the math.

It's Apple math.
Just like the Apple math that iOS is released with zero defects from QA.

Then read this math which is NOT from Apple.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/ios-zero-day-zerodium-high-supply/
Stop sending us zero-day iOS exploits.
We have too many already.

nospam wrote:
> In article <sesdf5$dsr$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> (Can you rifle through your neighbor's house looking for
>>>> kiddie porn and turn him in if found?)
>>
>>> yes.
>>
>> If you entered your neighbors house without permission you could
>> be charged with trespassing or burglary.
>
> true, but the child porn charge isn't going to magically disappear
> just because you also got hit with trespass or burglary.

True, as I said originally below: That should secure charges for *both*.

> he didn't say break into the neighbor's house. it could be after
> being invited.

He said "rifle" through your neighbors house. Doesn't sound invited to me.

> on the other hand, if a cop searched without a warrant, then
> anything found would be inadmissible, unless consent is given for the
> search.

Correct.

> that's why cops will ask, 'you don't mind if i search your car, do
> you?' most people say yes.

Correct. Unless they have contraband and say no. If the cops have
probable cause they can hold both the person and car, get a phone search
warrant, and then legally do the search.

> if you say no, they will intimidate you into saying yes.

If intimidation can be proved in court then both the search warrant and
any subsequent evidence can be invalidated.

> 'well, we could call out a drug-sniffing dog,

Dogs do provide probable cause for a search warrant.

> but that will probably be an hour, maybe longer, you don't want to
> drag this out longer than it needs to be, do you?'

Gotta be careful. Cell phone cameras everywhere these days. If it looks
like intimidation the judge will likely throw it out. But if the cops
are professional, and their suspicions are legitimate, an hour would not
likely be found unreasonable.

>>> law enforcement would need a warrant to search. ordinary citizens
>>> do not.
>>
>> If you saw child porn after illegally entering and told the cops
>> they should then secure the house, get the warrant based on your
>> probable cause statement, and then get the porn evidence. That
>> should help secure a charges for both of you.
>>
>>> people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair
>>> shop sees child porn, it gets reported.
>>
>> Quite different from illegally entering someone's home...
>
> not really. it's a private entity finding evidence of a crime.

Really. Illegal entry of a home by anyone is considered very serious,
cops or citizens.

> law enforcement would need a warrant to seize and search the
> computer.
>
> joe's computer repair shop does not.

Joe needs no warrant. When Joe calls the cops and tells them (probable
cause) the cops need a warrant to search the computer. Else whatever
they find will likely be inadmissible.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 00:57:07 +0100, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> False positives will be a big problem for those that fall foul of them.

You can ask them nicely to retract their mistakes after they ruin your life.

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>It's the latter. The documentation clearly states it is a "perceptual
>hash", which means based on image features.
>
>The description of the "neuralhash" doesn't build confidence that it can
>known to work exactly as intended. Quoting from Apple's PDF above:
>
> The system generates NeuralHash in two steps. First, an image is
> passed into a convolutional neural network to generate an
> N-dimensional, floating-point descriptor. Second, the descriptor is
> passed through a hashing scheme to convert the N floating-point
> numbers to M bits. Here, M is much smaller than the number of bits
> needed to represent the N floating-point numbers. NeuralHash
> achieves this level of compression and preserves sufficient
> information about the image so that matches and lookups on image sets
> are still successful, and the compression meets the storage and
> transmission requirements.

Yes, this is the source of my snide comment earlier in the thread about
machine learning systems that take inputs and extrapolate from them without
anyone being able to see inside the black box about what the extrapolation
is.

The hash here is only secondary. Most of what is going on is happening
inside that undocumentable black box. Then on top of that you have a
conventional hash. So the chance of having a false positive is actually
the sum of the chances of having false positives in either of the two
processes.

And we don't know how long the descriptor is, or how long the end hash
length M is either.

> The neural network that generates the descriptor is trained through a
> self-supervised training scheme. Images are perturbed with
> transformations that keep them perceptually identical to the
> original, creating an original/perturbed pair. The neural network is
> taught to generate descriptors that are close to one another for the
> original/perturbed pair. Similarly, the network is also taught to
> generate descriptors that are farther away from one another for an
> original/distractor pair. A distractor is any image that is not
> considered identical to the original. Descriptors are considered to
> be close to one another if the cosine of the angle between
> descriptors is close to 1. The trained network's output is an
> N-dimensional, floating-point descriptor. These N floating-point
> numbers are hashed using LSH, resulting in M bits. The M-bit LSH
> encodes a single bit for each of M hyperplanes, based on whether the
> descriptor is to the left or the right of the hyperplane. These M
> bits constitute the NeuralHash for the image.

The hash itself is undocumented, but the neural network box is not
even possible to document. The best anyone can do is document how it is
trained, and nobody is doing that (possibly because doing so would
require showing lots of child porn).

>Neural networks are known to have strange hard to predict image
>categorization flaws, which is why "adversarial patches" work. Maybe
>this system is robust against such attacks, may not. I know which way
>I'd bet. I'd much rather a perceptual hash that didn't involve a
>"neural" blackbox step.

This seems to me almost a recipe for weird failure modes, yes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <seshv8$15p$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | > ?? Remote storage is not publishing.
> |
> | Legally, it is.
> |
>
> You're making no sense. Publishing means making information
> of some kind available to the public. Online storage is meant
> to be a safe place to put your files, where others can't take
> them.

putting it there is publishing.

just because it's not world readable does not change the action.

ask an attorney to clarify it for you.

In article <sesigv$b8j$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>
> > if you say no, they will intimidate you into saying yes.
>
> If intimidation can be proved in court then both the search warrant and
> any subsequent evidence can be invalidated.

yea, good luck on that.

> > 'well, we could call out a drug-sniffing dog,
>
> Dogs do provide probable cause for a search warrant.

the point is that it's intimidation to threaten to call for a dog and
that it might take an hour or two to arrive, so in the meantime, you're
going to have to sit handcuffed in the back seat of the cruiser while
we all wait, the car will be turned off, so the air conditioner won't
be running, or you can just give consent and we can be done with this
in a few minutes. your choice.

> > but that will probably be an hour, maybe longer, you don't want to
> > drag this out longer than it needs to be, do you?'
>
> Gotta be careful. Cell phone cameras everywhere these days. If it looks
> like intimidation the judge will likely throw it out. But if the cops
> are professional, and their suspicions are legitimate, an hour would not
> likely be found unreasonable.

cops professional? that's hilarious.

did you see the video from a week or two ago where a cop visibly put a
bag of drugs in the back seat and then 'found' it?

plus, a cellphone camera isn't going to help if you're the only one
there and they handcuffed you while waiting for the dog or backup cops
or whatever to arrive. they might even smash the phone. yes, they're
not supposed to do that, but 'it unexpectedly hit the ground' while
trying to detain you.

> > law enforcement would need a warrant to seize and search the
> > computer.
> >
> > joe's computer repair shop does not.
>
> Joe needs no warrant. When Joe calls the cops and tells them (probable
> cause) the cops need a warrant to search the computer. Else whatever
> they find will likely be inadmissible.

joe reports a crime. cops investigate.

joe having found it is pc for a warrant, which will be trivial to
obtain.

nospam wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> If intimidation can be proved in court then both the search
>> warrant and any subsequent evidence can be invalidated.
>
> yea, good luck on that.

I'm not a lawyer but I've spent 1000s of hours in court. I can only
report on what I've seen over my 25 years. (All comments refer of course
to only my jurisdiction.)

>> Dogs do provide probable cause for a search warrant.

> the point is that it's intimidation to threaten to call for a dog and
> that it might take an hour or two to arrive,

Cops don't like sitting around for an hour either unless it's a sure thing.

> so in the meantime, you're going to have to sit handcuffed in the
> back seat of the cruiser

Generally not handcuffed unless they resisted the legal hold.

> while we all wait, the car will be turned off, so the air
> conditioner won't be running,

Not in my state (it was only 110F today). And the cop will likely be
sitting in the same car also trying to keep cool.

> or you can just give consent and we can be done with this in a few
> minutes. your choice.

Bad choice either way. Say yes, the cop finds the stash. Say no, the cop
gets a warrant and finds the stash.

> cops professional? that's hilarious.

It's often difficult considering the abuse they take.

> did you see the video from a week or two ago where a cop visibly put
> a bag of drugs in the back seat and then 'found' it?

That's a good example of a cop getting a bad rap. Look close at
the video and you'll see the bag is empty. Planting an empty bag?? Go
back and read the story again to find out what really happened.

> plus, a cellphone camera isn't going to help if you're the only one
> there and they handcuffed you while waiting for the dog or backup
> cops or whatever to arrive. they might even smash the phone. yes,
> they're not supposed to do that, but 'it unexpectedly hit the
> ground' while trying to detain you.

I'm guessing with your all cops are bad attitude that you spent some
time on the wrong side of the law.

>>> law enforcement would need a warrant to seize and search the
>>> computer.
>>>
>>> joe's computer repair shop does not.
>>
>> Joe needs no warrant. When Joe calls the cops and tells them
>> (probable cause) the cops need a warrant to search the computer.
>> Else whatever they find will likely be inadmissible.
>
> joe reports a crime. cops investigate.
>
> joe having found it is pc for a warrant, which will be trivial to
> obtain.

That's what I said 4 posts up...

On 2021-08-09 12:26 p.m., John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/08 6:54 pm, badgolferman wrote:
>> Why must every single iPhone user be subjected to this intrusion?
>
> Apple is assuming every iPhone owner is doing criminal acts with it.
> I think I know why (time will tell if my prophesy is astute).

Nope.

>
> Remember Apple said they wouldn't put full encryption on their servers?
> The FBI made Apple drop full end-to-end encryption on their servers.
>
> "Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained"
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

Wrong:

<https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT202303>

>
>
> Then remember when Apple claimed half assed encryption on their servers?
> The FBI wanted more access.
>
> FBI persuades Apple to drop real encryption
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51207744
>
> So now Apple gives the FBI the backdoor to your iPhone instead.
> Apple is now free to finally add full encryption on their own servers.
>
> "Apple opens each iPhone with a backdoor to encryption"
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life
>
>
> What's interesting is the people defending Apple have no perspective.
> They only know what Apple says (not what Apple is really doing).
>
> This allows apple to advertise full encryption on their iCloud servers.
> Even as there is really no encryption for the user because of the back
> door.

Am 10.08.21 um 02:49 schrieb John:
> On 8 Aug 2021 20:28:33 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> I haven't seen the math.
>
> It's Apple math.
> Just like the Apple math that iOS is released with zero defects from QA.
>
> Then read this math which is NOT from Apple.
>
> https://www.cyberscoop.com/ios-zero-day-zerodium-high-supply/
> Stop sending us zero-day iOS exploits.
> We have too many already.

Stop your spamming, Arlen/Ragnussen//paul/Newton

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2021-08-10 1:47 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-08-09 12:26 p.m., John Robertson wrote:
>> On 2021/08/08 6:54 pm, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Why must every single iPhone user be subjected to this intrusion?
>>
>> Apple is assuming every iPhone owner is doing criminal acts with it.
>> I think I know why (time will tell if my prophesy is astute).
>
> Nope.
>
>>
>> Remember Apple said they wouldn't put full encryption on their servers?
>> The FBI made Apple drop full end-to-end encryption on their servers.
>>
>> "Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained"
>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT
>
>
> Wrong:
>
> <https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT202303>

Well, it wouldn't be the first time Reuters is wrong about something.

--
SilverSlimer
@silverslimer

In article <8hxQI.18222$yS5.7100@fx46.iad>, SilverSlimer
<silver@slim.er> wrote:

> >>
> >> "Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained"
> >>
> >> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-app
> >> le-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN
> >> 1ZK1CT
> >
> >
> > Wrong:
> >
> > <https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT202303>
>
> Well, it wouldn't be the first time Reuters is wrong about something.

they're not wrong. it's just not the full story.

In message <seshv8$15p$1@dont-email.me> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

>| > ?? Remote storage is not publishing.
>|
>| Legally, it is.
>|

> You're making no sense. Publishing means making information
> of some kind available to the public. Online storage is meant
> to be a safe place to put your files, where others can't take
> them.

You are making up a definition that is not in line with the law, this
is always a bad thing to do.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but should we use dishwashing liquid or cooking
oil?"

In message <sesdf5$dsr$1@dont-email.me> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <20210809182337@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
>> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually, no. Not at all. The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT
>>>> actions.
>>>
>>> If data obtained that way is turned over to the government then it
>>> is not so clear that the 4th Amendment is not involved.
>>
>> it is very clear.
>>
>>> (Can you rifle through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie
>>> porn and turn him in if found?)

>> yes.

> If you entered your neighbors house without permission you could be
> charged with trespassing or burglary.

So what? If they report your child porn collection then you are still
going to prison.

>> law enforcement would need a warrant to search. ordinary citizens do
>> not.

> If you saw child porn after illegally entering and told the cops they should
> then secure the house, get the warrant based on your probable
> cause statement, and then get the porn evidence. That should help secure
> a charges for both of you.

The point is that yes, anyone can search for child porn and report it.
In fact, if you FIND child porn you are MANDATED to report it.
Concealing the existence of child porn is, in itself, a crime. So, if
you did break in to a house and you did find child porn, and you did not
report it, when you were caught you would be charged with breaking and
entering AND failing to report child pornography. Guess which one is the
more serious crime? Guess which one is most likely to lead to you dying
in prison?

>> people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair shop
>> sees child porn, it gets reported.

> Quite different from illegally entering someone's home...

You obviously know nothing about the law.

Here is the law that applies to Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and every
company that falls under the definition of "an electronic communication
service provider or remote computing service":

<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A>

--
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE WORDS 'DEATH WAS HIS CONSTANT COMPANION'?
'But I don't usually see you!'

On 10/08/2021 19:26, Lewis wrote:
> In message <sesdf5$dsr$1@dont-email.me> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <20210809182337@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
>>> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Actually, no. Not at all. The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT
>>>>> actions.
>>>>
>>>> If data obtained that way is turned over to the government then it
>>>> is not so clear that the 4th Amendment is not involved.
>>>
>>> it is very clear.
>>>
>>>> (Can you rifle through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie
>>>> porn and turn him in if found?)
>
>>> yes.
>
>> If you entered your neighbors house without permission you could be
>> charged with trespassing or burglary.
>
> So what? If they report your child porn collection then you are still
> going to prison.
>
>>> law enforcement would need a warrant to search. ordinary citizens do
>>> not.
>
>> If you saw child porn after illegally entering and told the cops they should
>> then secure the house, get the warrant based on your probable
>> cause statement, and then get the porn evidence. That should help secure
>> a charges for both of you.
>
> The point is that yes, anyone can search for child porn and report it.
> In fact, if you FIND child porn you are MANDATED to report it.
> Concealing the existence of child porn is, in itself, a crime. So, if
> you did break in to a house and you did find child porn, and you did not
> report it, when you were caught you would be charged with breaking and
> entering AND failing to report child pornography. Guess which one is the
> more serious crime? Guess which one is most likely to lead to you dying
> in prison?
>
>>> people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair shop
>>> sees child porn, it gets reported.
>
>> Quite different from illegally entering someone's home...
>
> You obviously know nothing about the law.
>
> Here is the law that applies to Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and every
> company that falls under the definition of "an electronic communication
> service provider or remote computing service":
>
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A>

Above you state that anyone who finds child porn is "mandated" to report
it. Yet the Cornell link you quote clearly lists the categories of
people who are so mandated and that list does not include trespassers or
burglars.

And even if someone were prosecuted under 2258A, the maximum prison
sentence is again clearly stated as one year, so somewhat unlikely that
anyone will be "dying in prison".

Did you not read the link you yourself posted?

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

In article <7bef3019-aae7-ee04-0582-c6defacd556c@scorecrow.com>, Bruce
Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

> > The point is that yes, anyone can search for child porn and report it.
> > In fact, if you FIND child porn you are MANDATED to report it.
> > Concealing the existence of child porn is, in itself, a crime. So, if
> > you did break in to a house and you did find child porn, and you did not
> > report it, when you were caught you would be charged with breaking and
> > entering AND failing to report child pornography. Guess which one is the
> > more serious crime? Guess which one is most likely to lead to you dying
> > in prison?
> >
> >>> people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair shop
> >>> sees child porn, it gets reported.
> >
> >> Quite different from illegally entering someone's home...
> >
> > You obviously know nothing about the law.
> >
> > Here is the law that applies to Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and every
> > company that falls under the definition of "an electronic communication
> > service provider or remote computing service":
> >
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A>
>
> Above you state that anyone who finds child porn is "mandated" to report
> it. Yet the Cornell link you quote clearly lists the categories of
> people who are so mandated and that list does not include trespassers or
> burglars.

18 U.S. Code § 2258A - Reporting requirements of providers

he cited that as the law that applies to *providers, aka apple,
facebook, twitter, etc.

trespassers & burglars are not providers, so that statue does not apply.

> And even if someone were prosecuted under 2258A, the maximum prison
> sentence is again clearly stated as one year, so somewhat unlikely that
> anyone will be "dying in prison".

when the other prisoners find out someone is in for kiddie porn,
they're not going to be particularly kind. that someone might not last
a month, if that long, unless they're in solitary, which they might be
because the prison knows what will happen.

> Did you not read the link you yourself posted?

he did. he described it as for apple, facebook, etc.

On 2021-08-10, John <john@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Apple says that they test iOS release software for zero defects.

False.

All you have are laughable lies.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

"Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

| >| > ?? Remote storage is not publishing.
| >|
| >| Legally, it is.
| >|
| | > You're making no sense. Publishing means making information
| > of some kind available to the public. Online storage is meant
| > to be a safe place to put your files, where others can't take
| > them.
| | You are making up a definition that is not in line with the law, this
| is always a bad thing to do.

You keep speaking these denials but with no reference
or link to make your case. But I'm giving you the benefit
of the doubt that you're not as loopy as nospam and that
perhaps you've misunderstood. From Wikipedia:

"Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music,
software and other content available to the public for sale or for free."

That's not a made-up definition. It's the definition
of the word. By your definition, anyone who stores
files not on their computer, or who stores a TV
in a rented storage unit, or who even keeps their
canoe at their summer cottage, is inviting anyone
and everyone to take those things.

I don't know of any file storage service that requires
you to make your files public. Even a photo you put on
Facebook can't be said to be published, unless you
make it publicly available.

In article <seunj5$qht$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | >| > ?? Remote storage is not publishing.
> | >|
> | >| Legally, it is.
> | >|
> |
> | > You're making no sense. Publishing means making information
> | > of some kind available to the public. Online storage is meant
> | > to be a safe place to put your files, where others can't take
> | > them.
> |
> | You are making up a definition that is not in line with the law, this
> | is always a bad thing to do.
>
> You keep speaking these denials but with no reference
> or link to make your case. But I'm giving you the benefit
> of the doubt that you're not as loopy as nospam and that
> perhaps you've misunderstood. From Wikipedia:
>
> "Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music,
> software and other content available to the public for sale or for free."

obtaining legal advice from wikipedia is a really bad idea.

> That's not a made-up definition. It's the definition
> of the word.

it's a dictionary definition, not a legal definition.

in a legal context, *one* person can be sufficient.

consult an attorney for specifics relevant to your situation.

there also the software design pattern of publish and subscribe, which
is also different than your dictionary definition, and can be contained
within one single app, no humans involved.

context matters.

<https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1688>
publish
v. to make public to at least one other person by any means.

<https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1674>
publication
...3) in the law of defamation (libel and slander) publication of
an untruth about another to at least one single person. Thus
one letter can be the basis of a suit for libel, and telling one
person is sufficient to show publication of slander.

<https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Publish>
In Libel and Slander law, to utter to a third person or to make
public a defamatory statement; in Commercial Paper law, to
present an instrument for payment or declare or assert that
a forged instrument is genuine.
....
In the law of slander, the term publish refers to defamatory
statements that are spoken in the presence of at least one other
person. A transitory, humiliating gesture that is defamatory also
constitutes slander if it is published, or understood, by a third
party.
....
In the law of commercial paper, publishing occurs when a check
or other negotiable instrument is presented. Publication also occurs
when a person vouches that a forged instrument is in fact genuine.
By publishing a negotiable instrument, the publisher declares that
the instrument is valid.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish­subscribe_pattern>
In software architecture, publish­subscribe is a messaging pattern
where senders of messages, called publishers, do not program
the messages to be sent directly to specific receivers, called
subscribers, but instead categorize published messages into
classes without knowledge of which subscribers, if any, there may
be. Similarly, subscribers express interest in one or more classes
and only receive messages that are of interest, without knowledge
of which publishers, if any, there are.

<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15594905/difference-between-observe
r-pub-sub-and-data-binding>
What is the difference between the Observer Pattern,
Publish/Subscribe, and Data Binding?

> By your definition, anyone who stores
> files not on their computer, or who stores a TV
> in a rented storage unit, or who even keeps their
> canoe at their summer cottage, is inviting anyone
> and everyone to take those things.

it doesn't mean that.

> I don't know of any file storage service that requires
> you to make your files public. Even a photo you put on
> Facebook can't be said to be published, unless you
> make it publicly available.

yes it can.

again, context matters.

In message <seunj5$qht$1@dont-email.me> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

>| >| > ?? Remote storage is not publishing.
>| >|
>| >| Legally, it is.
>| >|
>|
>| > You're making no sense. Publishing means making information
>| > of some kind available to the public. Online storage is meant
>| > to be a safe place to put your files, where others can't take
>| > them.
>|
>| You are making up a definition that is not in line with the law, this
>| is always a bad thing to do.

> You keep speaking these denials but with no reference
> or link to make your case. But I'm giving you the benefit
> of the doubt that you're not as loopy as nospam and that
> perhaps you've misunderstood. From Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is not a legal source.

I provided the US code citation in another post.

> That's not a made-up definition. It's the definition
> of the word.

Which has exactly NOTHING to do with the legal definition of publishing.
Not even a little bit, but literally nothing at all.

> By your definition, anyone who stores
> files not on their computer, or who stores a TV
> in a rented storage unit, or who even keeps their
> canoe at their summer cottage, is inviting anyone
> and everyone to take those things.

Now you are making up things that were never said by anyone.

> I don't know of any file storage service that requires
> you to make your files public. Even a photo you put on
> Facebook can't be said to be published, unless you
> make it publicly available.

You are 100% wrong. Many people have told you this, perhaps you should
look it up, or would you rather bask in your ignorance?

--
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a
career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy
anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or
processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You
know, as a career, I don't want to do that.

In message <7bef3019-aae7-ee04-0582-c6defacd556c@scorecrow.com> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 19:26, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <sesdf5$dsr$1@dont-email.me> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <20210809182337@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
>>>> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, no. Not at all. The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT
>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If data obtained that way is turned over to the government then it
>>>>> is not so clear that the 4th Amendment is not involved.
>>>>
>>>> it is very clear.
>>>>
>>>>> (Can you rifle through your neighbor's house looking for kiddie
>>>>> porn and turn him in if found?)
>>
>>>> yes.
>>
>>> If you entered your neighbors house without permission you could be
>>> charged with trespassing or burglary.
>>
>> So what? If they report your child porn collection then you are still
>> going to prison.
>>
>>>> law enforcement would need a warrant to search. ordinary citizens do
>>>> not.
>>
>>> If you saw child porn after illegally entering and told the cops they should
>>> then secure the house, get the warrant based on your probable
>>> cause statement, and then get the porn evidence. That should help secure
>>> a charges for both of you.
>>
>> The point is that yes, anyone can search for child porn and report it.
>> In fact, if you FIND child porn you are MANDATED to report it.
>> Concealing the existence of child porn is, in itself, a crime. So, if
>> you did break in to a house and you did find child porn, and you did not
>> report it, when you were caught you would be charged with breaking and
>> entering AND failing to report child pornography. Guess which one is the
>> more serious crime? Guess which one is most likely to lead to you dying
>> in prison?
>>
>>>> people have brought computers in for repair, and if the repair shop
>>>> sees child porn, it gets reported.
>>
>>> Quite different from illegally entering someone's home...
>>
>> You obviously know nothing about the law.
>>
>> Here is the law that applies to Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and every
>> company that falls under the definition of "an electronic communication
>> service provider or remote computing service":
>>
>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A>

> Above you state that anyone who finds child porn is "mandated" to report
> it. Yet the Cornell link you quote clearly lists the categories of
> people who are so mandated and that list does not include trespassers or
> burglars.

This specific law is about "Providers" it is not the only law.

> And even if someone were prosecuted under 2258A, the maximum prison
> sentence is again clearly stated as one year, so somewhat unlikely that
> anyone will be "dying in prison".

The odds of dying in prison are very very high because anyone involved
in child molestation has a very very high chance of dying in prison,
second only to former cops.

--
Given your quest-heavy lifestyle, there’s no guarantee any of you will live to
see Christmas.