The scanning Apple wanted to do was intrusive, had flaws, and could be abused. That's why you had security researchers, the EFF, etc, speaking out against it. Not long after the announcement, people were sharing "collisions" on Github ( https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue... ) showing that fake positives would be a problem (any alarm bells?)... which then forced Apple to say that there would be a v2 that would fix this (even though they had said that v1 was safe and secure).

On top of ignoring these issues, you seem to be under the impression that the system was only for CSAM detection. It wasn't. The system looked for content... and Apple was going to feed it a CSAM "database" to find that type of content. The problem is that Apple has to follow local rules and many governments have their own database of bad content to block (and report to the authorities)... and Apple usually complies instead of leaving the market. For example, in China, the state has access to encrypted data because Apple gave them the encryption keys per local law. They also ban censorship avoidance apps. For some reason this would be different?

If you want to insist that it was just for CSAM and that people criticising Apple are pedos or are against companies combating CSAM, then do it, but do it with the knowledge that the system wasn't just for CSAM, that it could be tricked (and possibly ruin people's lives), and that it would likely been abused by governments.