[secalex]

This is an incorrect reading of our report. Twitter has scanned for CSAM using PhotoDNA for years, and is an early member of the Tech Coalition of companies working on this issue.

What we discovered is that, since Musk's takeover, that Twitter's CSAM scanning failed and was not noticed by Twitter. They fixed it several weeks after we notified them, and then shut off our API access to prevent further research.

[moralestapia]

>This is an incorrect reading of our report.

Really?(!), how's that? It's a direct, verbatim quote from the (your?) blog post.

But thanks for dropping by, could you clarify a few things?

>[...] since Musk's takeover, that Twitter's CSAM scanning failed and was not noticed by Twitter.

What you're saying is that:

1. It was working before Musk was there.

2. It stopped working after Musk took over.

Please answer this in a non-subjective way.

>They fixed it several weeks after we notified them

And, in your opinion, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[secalex]

A regression means that PhotoDNA scanning was working, and then stopped working correctly. This happened in the last several months, well after Mr. Musk's takeover.

I think it is good that they fixed it. That is why we directly reached out to them to help address the issue before we published. I think it is bad that they cut off our API access and are threatening academic researchers with lawsuits.

[ahahahahah]

> And, in your opinion, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's a bad thing that it stopped working. It's a very bad thing that they didn't detect that it had stopped working. It's a bad thing that it took weeks to fix it. It's a good thing (well, good at best, i'd call it "expected" or "the bare minimum") that they fixed it.

[ahahahahah]

> Really?(!), how's that? It's a direct, verbatim quote from the (your?) blog post.

wow, now i think you're just trolling.

The direct quote was this:

>Twitter had an apparent and now resolved regression allowing CSAM to be posted to public profiles [...]

You then went on to make several statements/claims, such as:

1. "@elonmusk for making this one of their priorities when he let the sink in"

2. "it was quickly resolved"

3. An open question for the reader is "why was this ignored for almost a decade?".

Each one of those statements are incorrect readings of the report and none of them are justified by the quote you pulled from it.

On (1): There's no evidence that elon musk made this a priority. Given that it broke after he bought twitter and that they didn't detect that it broke and that it took weeks to fix it when they were informed of it, I think the evidence points to the exact opposite (i.e. it's not a priority).

On (2): weeks is not "quickly", and the "quickly" was your own thing, the report only says that it was resolved.

On (3): as you've been informed, this wasn't broken for almost a decade, it was broken after musk acquired twitter.

[2-718-281-828]

how long did the failure go unnoticed?