That doesn't sound like an argument against my proposal. Or, if it is, it's like arguing against using locks because any lock can be picked.
Any counter-measure, even the most invasive and draconian, can be foiled by simply doing your CSAM offline, using photocopiers and the postal service. That would be a big improvement, I'd argue.
So whats your big improvement then? Locks are there to prevent random joes from entering your house, no one expects a lock to work against thieves that would be foolish because it never stopped em. Your argument is otherwise, you expect your “lock” to work on culprits. Also your offline scanning tech requires an update to hashes all the time, whats stopping any jury/govt from injecting hashes that aren’t CSAM, expecting governments and as an extension judiciary to operate in good faith is more foolish to assume.
Im not even talking about breaking into the scanning software, defeating the scan is as easy as not sending them as image simple.
Any counter-measure, even the most invasive and draconian, can be foiled by simply doing your CSAM offline, using photocopiers and the postal service. That would be a big improvement, I'd argue.