I think I explained it adequately. An attacker gets some hashes likely to be in the database. The attacker modified legal pornography of young looking people, perhaps closeups of genitalia, to match the child porn hashes.
There are plenty of examples of US persons being charged for lawful pornography which a prosecutor accused of being child porn, I linked to one such example-- where the accused was rescued only by the testimony of the actress, and where the prosecution had expert witnessess testifying that the images of an adult were images of a child.
The attacker in this case would know the origin of the images and could point to them. The victim would have no idea where they came from.
I have searched the case law, and can find no case where the NCMEC provided an image for comparison. Are you aware of any?
You also seem to have continued to move the goalpost. Being merely accused of possessing child porn would be extremely damaging to a person. The fact that they might escape conviction by a jury after years of legal ordeal, incarceration, and having their reputation ruined, is not that much consolation.
> The idea that new images of nudity could be caught in it is because
This is an absurd claim. I have demonstrated (https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue...) that it is possible to alter existing images to match an arbitrary neuralhash resulting in a perfectly normal looking image. This point is not a matter for dispute, anymore.
I could easily do so with a nude or pornographic image, I only chose to use SFW pictures out of good taste.
My interest in apple's scheme arouse out of their malicious use of cryptography to shield their actions from accountability. I didn't even hear about the imessage nudie scanner until some time after. You can be certain no such confusion applies here.