Yeah that’s a fair point. The only reason I was careful was just in case those photos got leaked and taken out of context. Which is a bloody depressing thing to consider when innocently taking pictures of your own family :(

I might have phrased that ambiguously, I mean "an affront to me" as in "to me, that's an affront", not that you have somehow insulted me.

I say let children be free, no court is going to indict you because you have baby pictures on your phone.

> no court is going to indict you because you have baby pictures on your phone

Maybe, maybe not. Bad luck is possible with anything involving police, prosecutors, judges, and juries. Need justification for that point of view? Just look at the number of people who were convicted and spent time in jail who truly were innocent. That doesn't even touch on the possible repercussions that can happen from just being questioned/arrested and later let go.

Don't immediately take affront, take the best possible interpretation of the parent comment. This is about automatic scanning of people's photo libraries in the context of searching for child pornography, presumably through some kind of ML. It seems to me that the concern of the commenter is that if there are photos of their child's genitals that they'll be questioned about creating child pornography, not that they're squeamish about photographing their child's genitals. This happened in 1995 in the UK: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-...

I mean I’m offended on behalf of the parent poster.

Indeed, I'm guessing this must be some cultural shift that was successfully implanted in some cultures because I too find the idea completely bonkers.

If babies playing naked are now child pornography, most Europeans above 50 should be jailed.

As that seems unlikely, I guess CSAM just uses a constantly updated database of known hashes for matching.

It doesn't mean they can't look at the matches without jailing you (still a violation of privacy).