That doesn't seem to be the same kind of detectors at all.
"21.4 million of these reports were from Electronic Service Providers that report instances of apparent child sexual abuse material that they become aware of on their systems."
So those 20M seems to be images that Facebook looked at and determined to be CP. Apple's system is about comparing hashes against already known CP.
For the record: I don't support Apple's system here, but it's not the same kind of detection at all. Let's try to not make up random facts.
> The vast majority of Facebook NCMEC reports are hits for known CSAM using a couple of different perceptual fingerprints using both NCMEC's and FB's own hash banks.
That's a summary number of many kinds of reports, of which CSAM hash matches would be one part.
That summary number also includes accusations of child sex trafficking and online enticement. I wouldn't be surprised if reported allegations of trafficking and enticement were in excess of 99.9% of Facebook's reporting. But since they don't break it out, I can only guess.
Given that guesses aren't useful to anyone, it would be interesting if you know of any statistics from any of the major tech vendors, of the reporting frequency of just CSAM hash matches.
> The vast majority of Facebook NCMEC reports are hits for known CSAM using a couple of different perceptual fingerprints using both NCMEC's and FB's own hash banks.
Fascinating. Thank you for providing the clarification. I still find that number to be perplexingly huge. If it's indeed correct, one hopes that Apple know what they're getting themselves in for.
Thanks for the kind suggestion, but I'm not going to concede anything on the basis of an assertion made by one person in one tweet, with zero supporting evidence, zero specificity, zero context.
Assuming that number is correct, it means there are orders of magnitude more reports than there are entries in the CSAM database. So even if I conceded that Facebook were reporting over 10 million CSAM images, how many distinct images does this represent? More than four? We have no idea.
How many of those four were actually illegal? Remember, there's a Venn diagram of CSAM and illegal. A non-sexual, non-nude photograph of a child about to be abused is CSAM but not illegal.
This is a serious topic; you don't seem to be taking it seriously.
"21.4 million of these reports were from Electronic Service Providers that report instances of apparent child sexual abuse material that they become aware of on their systems."
So those 20M seems to be images that Facebook looked at and determined to be CP. Apple's system is about comparing hashes against already known CP.
For the record: I don't support Apple's system here, but it's not the same kind of detection at all. Let's try to not make up random facts.