@jasgot said in Apple plans to scan your images for child porn:
@obsolesce said in Apple plans to scan your images for child porn:
@marcinozga said in Apple plans to scan your images for child porn:
I bet 100% of parents have pictures of their naked children.
Definitely not. Including your child's genitals in a photo is a conscious decision you don't need to do.
We have photos of our children playing in the bathtub for example, but also made the conscious effort to not include their genitals in the photo. There's no reason to include that in the photo regardless of intentions.
Genitalia are not a requirement to classify a picture as child pornography.
New Jersey State Statute Subsection 
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:24-4(b)(1).
Says:
"to otherwise depict a child for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who may view the depiction where the depiction does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Subsection (c) defines child pornography, not in terms of whether it depicts some sort of sexual activity, but rather in terms of the reaction the image is meant to evoke. The statute is thus remarkably broad, and the prohibition is based entirely on subjective (rather than objective) criteria.
An example may help: source
Imagine an individual who is sexually attracted to children, and who finds photographs of children bundled up in winter coats to be sexually stimulating. If that individual takes a picture of a child walking down the street who is wearing a winter coat, then the New Jersey statute would classify that picture as child pornography. All that matters is whether the image ‘‘depict[s] a child,’’ whether the individual who created the image had ‘‘the purpose of sexual stimulation,’’ and whether the resulting image had no ‘‘serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.’’ All three of those factors are met by the example.
Yes, context plays a big part of it and definitely understandable.
But I wasn't saying what was and was not condisered child pornography. I was disagreeing with what I quoted specifically.
