[HN Gopher] European Commission prefers breaking privacy to prot... ___________________________________________________________________ European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids Author : gnufx Score : 260 points Date : 2022-05-11 15:19 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.lightbluetouchpaper.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.lightbluetouchpaper.org) | grnmamba wrote: | This is the true face of the EU. Anyone who opposes it will be | branded as a child molester. Even if the parliament rejects this | proposal, the next power hungry authoritarian can simply try | again, until eventually one parliament will pass it. | | You can be either in support of total surveillance, or in support | of abolishing the EU. There is no middle ground. | aasasd wrote: | If you replace 'EU' with 'US' in that comment, its internal | logic and validity does not change whatsoever. | | So: "You can be either in support of total surveillance, or in | support of abolishing the US. There is no middle ground." | | I would also guess that you could substitute the EU with any | single EU country with the same result. Abolish Germany, | abolish France, abolish Italy, abolish all parliaments, there's | no middle ground. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > This is the true face of the EU. | | Why is it so popular to bash EU here over non sequitur? | | is it jealousy or simply anti EU people not being able to mouth | their opinions among their EU peers in Europe because they | would be laughed at? | fhajl wrote: | The EU exists to facilitate commerce and allowing Eastern | European workers in order to drive down wages. | | It exists to give jobs in Brussels to the right people (who | often failed in domestic politics). | | It exists to rein in Germany and the Deutschmark. | | It does not exist for you. | macinjosh wrote: | It couldn't possibly be because the EU is incredibly | problematic. /s | grnmamba wrote: | Is that a rhetorical question? | | I'm bashing the EU because they are trying to create a | surveillance state. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > I'm bashing the EU because they are trying to create a | surveillance state. | | If that was true, we would all be worried. | | Have you ever thought that your paranoia is not proof of | anything? | | Meanwhile: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Un | i... | | https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency- | spie... | | I am still worried about facts, especially those carried | out by agencies working secretively under practically no | control by the people, that sometimes also spy on those | same people they are sworn to protect. | | Anyway, EU is not a State, so EU can't technically build a | surveillance State. | | EU is not the NSA. | DontMindit wrote: | EU and NSA, same actors, different starting conditions | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > EU and NSA, same actors, different starting conditions | | that's frankly one of the most ridiculous things I've | ever read in my entire life. | | Care to explain what's your rationale behind it? | | Where's, for example, the European Snowden? | | Where's proof of EU spying not only allied leaders, which | is already bad enough, but the citizens of the country | they work for? | Abroszka wrote: | EU has nothing to do with it. Just look at UK, outside the EU | still doing the same thing. It's a global trend. It's more or | less irrelevant what kind of country you live in, people are | pushing to end E2E encryption. | AlbertoGP wrote: | > _Even if the parliament rejects this proposal, the next power | hungry authoritarian can simply try again, until eventually one | parliament will pass it._ | | Indeed, in the words of the previous President of the European | Commission: | | " _We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and | see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most | people don 't understand what has been decided, we continue | step by step until there is no turning back._" | https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker#1999 | | The current President of the European Commission has been a | long time advocate for Internet control: | | " _However, in the digital community, her posturing for the | EU's top job has caused concern. In 2000, when Von Der Leyen | was Families minister, she advocated for the mandatory blocking | of child pornography online via a list of offending websites | managed by police authorities. Germany's Pirate Party claimed | that the law would lead to censorship of the internet._ " | | " _The outcry that resulted was dubbed the 'Zensursula' | scandal, blending the German word for censorship ("Zensur") and | her name ("Ursula"). The move was eventually repealed after it | being challenged broadly, including a petition that had | garnered tens of thousands of signatures._ " | https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/digital-brief-... | hkwerf wrote: | I can finally wear my Zensursula t-shirt again! | | https://www.getdigital.de/zensursula.html | sharken wrote: | We can't have nice things it seems. | | Overall EU is a good idea, but total surveillance is a scary, | scary concept that must be avoided at all cost, even at the | cost of EU as concept. | jotm wrote: | Oh please, that's like saying "you either become rich or kill | yourself". Ridiculous. | | This kind of shit pops up everywhere, not only the EU. I have | no idea what tf is driving it, probably the same thing that | turned many countries into dictatorships. | | Human nature, really, but how these assholes always get into | power is a mystery to me. | DontMindit wrote: | N.VV.0 or whatever name you want to give them. Its world | wide, its coming and theres no escape | harabat wrote: | Related from yesterday: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31329368 (300 comments) | davidkunz wrote: | Always the same argument to open doors for mass surveillance. | | https://youtu.be/RybNI0KB1bg | ephbit wrote: | Totally off topic ... I am to a certain degree curious what | video hides behind this link. Maybe I'd even want to watch it. | | But at the same time I am too turned off by the fact that I'd | actually need to visit the link just to learn the title of this | video to actually do the click. | | Ever felt the same? | this_is_eline wrote: | Nothing new. People in general prefer giving up their privacy for | 'safety'. | jotm wrote: | They'll give it up for convenience or a dollar, too. | coldtea wrote: | If that was the tradeoff, it would be worth it. | | This is giving up their privacy for nothing in return, or | worse, negative restrictions on their political freedom and | freedom of expression. | pc86 wrote: | Speak for yourself. Privacy and freedom are more important | than security to many, many people. | coldtea wrote: | Sounds good, doesn't work. | | Security and freedom are "platonic" ideals. None of those | exists in the abstract, as a real world thing, and you | can't find one without the other in the wild (in a Disney- | like world, maybe, but not in the real world, in the | presense of others, that is people that want to deprive you | of either/both, and can benefit from doing so). | | Trivially speaking, if some thugs can just come and beat | you with no police or legal resources available to you, you | don't have either pricacy or security. Both are at their | mercy. | | You could of course defend yourself, but then you're still | getting your freedom through security: it's just that in | this case you're obligated to cater get that security on | your own. | | So, we trade some freedom (giving state the ability to | enforce laws, have police) in excange for security. And | vice versa. | | But in any case, my point above was different: that what | TFA descrives is not a tradeoff between privacy and | security, it is giving up privacy for no real benefit. If | anything, losing encryption costs in both privacy AND | security. | jaywalk wrote: | When people say "privacy and freedom are more important | than security" it's in regards to privacy and freedom | being curtailed _by the government_ in order for _the | government_ to provide security. Don 't be absurd. | Kim_Bruning wrote: | Privacy is a form of security though (security for your own | thoughts and actions in the own home, and in, on, and near | your person). At the very least it is a domain that | strongly overlaps with security. | | And good security is what gives you the safety to be free. | | If you want to sacrifice freedom for security, you might | end up putting the cart before the horse. | | And of course sacrificing privacy for security is at best | balancing 2 different kinds of security. You're not | necessarily gaining security. | | In this case it means that there's no guarantee that | children will actually netto be safer if people can scan | private communications. | hexo wrote: | In our country, privacy is protected by constitution. | a-dub wrote: | rather than playing all these games later trying to catch and | track it, i can't help but wonder if it could be better halted by | training kids early on when and how to get help to stop it before | it's produced. | | otherwise it seems it will just be this technological cat and | mouse game that destroys privacy rights and empowers bad actors | to plant it maliciously (swatting 2.0). | BlargMcLarg wrote: | At least for The Netherlands, this is what _used_ to happen | (and I still hope it is). School educated on various topics | regarding power dynamics in relationships and the problems that | can spawn forth from it. | | Of course, some teens are going to get tempted and do stupid | things either way. Imagine the least innocent thing you know | about your peers back in those days, many will have likely been | tempted to go off the deeper end in some way. It's difficult to | give children safety _and_ privacy when they actively seek to | dare themselves and one another, not heed warnings, etc. | a-dub wrote: | wait, what? they taught children pedagogically about how not | to be manipulated or controlled in a general sense? | | what an incredibly enlightened idea! was it any good? did it | work? | BlargMcLarg wrote: | I suspect it worked in the sense that some teens took | precautions. I don't believe my classmates had anything bad | happen to them, but a fair few of them definitely put | themselves into situations that _could_ have been bad if | the other party was a little more malicious (power | imbalance, blackmail, nudes spread, etc.) I also suspect | that what I heard was only the tip of the iceberg of their | actual experimentations. | | Like I said, some teens are still going to do stupid stuff | despite being warned. It's difficult to give them both | autonomy, security and privacy when they won't heed | warnings. I like to believe not invading their privacy and | simply teaching them is enough, but some others might feel | the EU's need to be a universal helicopter parent to be | justified when the consequences are too high. | HL33tibCe7 wrote: | The EU is honestly just so awful when it comes to anything | relating to technology. The number of insane proposals I've seen | from them over the years... It's like they've got the worst | political takes on tech from each EU country and smushed them | together into a big ball of awfulness. | thenaturalist wrote: | Care to share some details? | | When it comes to privacy invasion the EU has been a champion in | curbing massively intrusive corporate practices for years now. | | Some of it is awful yes, but other high visibility projects | have been amazing. I'm glad to be European when I look at the | insanity that is the American tracking and personal data | brokers industry. | | I recommend a recent John Oliver on this: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > The EU is honestly just so awful when it comes to anything | relating to technology | | and yet all the scandals about breaking the privacy of users | for profit or worse didn't come from EU. | | Maybe they are not that wrong... | b-x wrote: | Their true motives are far from protecting kids. Otherwise, they | would install security cameras inside all corners in all churches | in the continent, and, more importantly, enforce bodycam on | pastors 24/7. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > cameras inside all corners in all churches in the continent, | | Because that's how you protect people privacy, right??? | | Why not put military personnel in every corner of every street | and check if people have the "approved by the government" | tattoo on their wrists? | b-x wrote: | > Because that's how you protect people privacy, right??? | | I'm not promoting such practices. In fact, I was just trying | to use the legislators logic: if they are truthful about | their "protecting children" slogan, let them start their | policing where the predators are most likely to be found | instead of targeting the entire population. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > if they are truthful about their "protecting children" | slogan, | | they would try to solve it as they see fit. | | legislators are voted by the people, with many different | ideas. they aren't a caste disconnected by the rest of the | World. | | especially in EU institutions where is much harder to make | a career over lobbying for some local interest. | | Worst politicians in Europe work in national parliaments. | | > let them start their policing where the predators are | | You mean in their houses, where the vast majority of the | abuses take place? | | Please, don't post simplistic vox populi stuff. | b-x wrote: | > they would try to solve it as they see fit. | | It seems for them the solution is to destroy privacy for | the entire population. | | > Please, don't post simplistic vox populi stuff. | | Please ask this to the European Commision instead. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > It seems for them the solution is to destroy privacy | for the entire population. | | a bit of overreaction never fails to double back on poor | arguments. | | > Please ask this to the European Commision instead. | | as a matter of fact I do. | | I participate actively. | | Do you? | seydor wrote: | The four horsemen strike again. I think i 'll let this one pass. | People should be inconvenienced enough to learn to use | uncensorable platforms. | Ambolia wrote: | Yes, at this point of the internet, the fact that most people | have decided to depend on big platforms and not develop | properly all the distributed alternatives available for many | years, it's hard to blame anybody except ourselves. | NoraCodes wrote: | I don't agree. "Ourselves"? Did I have a choice in my entire | social network choosing to use Facebook and Twitter? Did I | have a choice in LinkedIn being my best option for getting | employment? No. | | I talk about this stuff all the time. I blog [1] about it and | complain about it to my family and friends until it gets | annoying. And it _does not matter_ how much individual effort | I put into this because people have no incentive to change. | | 1: https://nora.codes/post/deletefacebook-and-fosta/ | Ambolia wrote: | Yes, I think it's hard for normal people to use those | networks because at this point they are unable to replicate | the network effects of centralized media, as in there is no | simple way of going from 1to1 communication and build from | there to many-to-many. | | But I think we people who are into tech should have | coordinated more among ourselves that at least we used and | helped to grow until they are mature enough for regular | people. | fithisux wrote: | I'm interested though. Any starter guide? | Ambolia wrote: | Well, there's nothing properly developed, that's why we are | still here. The basic building blocks are all there, | cryptography for privacy and identity. p2p networks for | data transfer have worked in the piracy world for many | years too. | | What is missing is putting it all together and be able to | replicate the network effects you get from centralized | media, like if you are able to reach one person, be able to | reach in a simple way all of his friends as well (supposing | they want to be reached). | Syonyk wrote: | Matrix, in "few users per server, federated" sort of | deployments, seems it would accomplish a lot of this. | hedora wrote: | Isn't the idea to ban client hardware capable of running | such software? | sysadm1n wrote: | > The four horsemen strike again. | | You mean this: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... | xcambar wrote: | Thanks, I needed it. | 0x_rs wrote: | > _Finally, the proposed Regulation contains safeguards to ensure | that technologies used for the purposes of detection, reporting | and removal of online child sexual abuse to comply with a | detection order are the least privacy-intrusive and are in | accordance with the state of the art in the industry; they | perform any necessary review on an anonymous basis and only take | steps to identify any user in case potential online child sexual | abuse is detected. It guarantees the fundamental right to an | effective remedy in all phases of the relevant activities, from | detection to removal, and it limits the preservation of removed | material and related data to what is strictly necessary for | certain specified purposes. Thereby, the proposed Regulation | limits the interference with the right to personal data | protection of users and their right to confidentiality of | communications, to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of | ensuring the achievement of its objectives, that is, laying down | harmonised rules for effectively preventing and combating online | child sexual abuse in the internal market._ (from the proposal) | | It doesn't seem to me the document goes very much into detail on | the effects this will cause for privacy rights, both with its | application and indirectly, and how it should be implemented, | despite briefly bringing up encryption concerns from the | opposition. I can't see this anonymized data collection work as | claimed due to the sensitive nature of the subject at hand | (private conversations), and I wonder about the enforcement | rights it'd allow (imposition of "remedies", fines, periodic | penalty payments, and "power to adopt interim measures to avoid | the risk of serious harm") and the importance of rapid content | deletion for small-to-medium online platforms and personal sites | as it has been hinted in the past. I really do not trust | companies to have a privacy minded approach nor I consider my | government capable of doing so as it does not benefit it in | practice. (the document does mention strong support from "law | enforcement authorities") | Kim_Bruning wrote: | I get the impression that a lot of police forces are "offense" | minded, and they are pushing for these kinds of measures. So they | want way to break into systems and intercept communications. | | On the other hand civilians are more "defense" minded, because | they're not allowed to attack in the first place. So their | preferred M.O. is to protect systems and encrypt communications. | | A lot of governments apparently don't have as large/as | influentual defense minded departments or units, else we wouldn't | keep seeing this topic coming back. | nomendos wrote: | "protecting kids" is a "way of the devil" done by weak | bureaucrats towards creating tools for totalitarian control, as | government can and should not be trusted with anything proactive | or en mass! | boredumb wrote: | Now that covid is waning, we're back to 'the kids' in order to | allow governments absurd amounts of power over individuals. None | of these excuses are put forth in order to further the argument, | it's to create a trap for detractors and be able to label them as | evil people, killing grandma, hating kids, supporting terror, etc | etc. | unethical_ban wrote: | Just for the record, one can believe in Covid restrictions of | 2020 and also believe this CSAM action is absurd and anti- | privacy. | | Equating them is shallow at best and misleading at worst. | RC_ITR wrote: | When you're a hammer (libertarian) everything looks like a | nail (bad faith crisis management to justify to government | overreach). | | The problem is the world _is_ full of crises that need | government support, the question is which do we want | addressed? | pitaj wrote: | The world is full of crises created by government | intervention: healthcare, housing, education, etc. | boredumb wrote: | One can believe in covid restrictions, but they would be | naive if they think there wasn't a huge cost imposed on | individuals and it's not immediately obvious that more | restrictions meant less disease. Dismissing governments | ability to utilize fear in order to enact powers they | previously didn't hold, just because one fear is something | held more dearly is how all of these things pass. Child abuse | and covid are both real and both are and were used to give | government power that most free societies would reject | outright and without further question if neither existed. | trasz wrote: | We have a perfectly good war though. | dudul wrote: | The irony is that "the kids" is always the primary argument put | forward to pass legislations that have little to do with "the | kids", while the one time we had to worry about "the kids" and | their mental well being, adults just decided to sacrifice them | to avoid getting a bad flu. | antihero wrote: | Ah yes, love to remember that time the EU tried to break | encryption to make people wear masks. | [deleted] | peoplefromibiza wrote: | Cambridge is not EU anymore. | | They should focus on their country. | | https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/30/uk-tells-messaging-apps-no... | rapht wrote: | As usual, the solution lies in peer-to-peer apps where there is | no centralized provider that will have any responsibility or | oversight. Wait... isn't that what infringers already use? | petre wrote: | Think of the kids is just another excuse to break privacy now | that terrorism and covid aren't interesting anymore. I wonder | what's gonna be next? Russian propaganda and fake news? | alaricus wrote: | "Protecting kids" is a load of nonsense. It's just a convenient | excuse and sounds much better than "we want to read your private | stuff". | jotm wrote: | I don't quite understand, to what end? This is clearly a good | step towards authoritarianism, but then what? People | "disappearing" and more population control? | | The world sometimes seems so ridiculous I can't believe it. | hkwerf wrote: | In the end it may just be about (corrupted) power. Those who | are in power can use the data they gather through | surveillance to stay in power, even without "disappearing". | It's sufficient to be able to identify whistleblowers and | have that be known in order for fewer people to blow the | whistle. | throwaway67743 wrote: | The only people really thinking of the children are the ones | not bound by said law and will not be interfered with... | | (In case it's to subtle, the actual child abusers or consumers | of said content) | fsckboy wrote: | the headline is horribly biased (could we change it to "think | of the children!"?) but it seems to me if you want to protect | children from pedos that you would need to read both of their | email, so I don't understand how breaking privacy threatens | children. | cors-fls wrote: | Mandating that the takedown go through this agency means | states won't be able to hire private companies specialising | in takedowns (and faster). Takedowns take way longer, which | hurts the children. | andai wrote: | >We found that the specialist contractors who take down | phishing websites for banks would typically take six hours | to remove an offending website, while the Internet Watch | Foundation - which has a legal monopoly on taking down | child-abuse material in the UK - would often take six | weeks. | | [...] | | >So it's really stupid for the European Commission to | mandate centralised takedown by a police agency for the | whole of Europe. This will be make everything really hard | to fix once they find out that it doesn't work, and it | becomes obvious that child abuse websites stay up longer, | causing real harm. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > which has a legal monopoly on taking down child-abuse | material in the UK | | So basically a pr stunt from those who left the EU to | feel better about themselves? | AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: | Does anyone know why the EU is doing this? Everyone knows that | the children thing is a pathetic excuse, but why do they want | surveillance? I highly doubt that messaging is a big risk to EU | stability. So why make such an effort? | pas wrote: | it's the same as the abortion issue. there are a lot of people | who honestly sincerely earnestly believe in it. then there are | those who share this belief but see it as part of something | bigger. | | this last group is the fucking fascist small dick energy | idiots, who believe in order based on a hierarchy of people, | classes, races, countries, etc... | exabrial wrote: | > to protecting kids | | Let's be clear, this has nothing to do with protecting kids and | everything with backdoors. The idea here is that anyone that | opposes this can be easily accused of being a child molestor. | j_san wrote: | I very opposed to the proposal of the commission - in fact I | even went to a demonstration today against it. It's a horrible | privacy invasion and very bad in many different ways, but... | | But I think your take is not true. I can imagine that it might | just be a really misinformed proposal to actually go against | child abuse. I hope. | kingcharles wrote: | I think the poster above you is right, though. If you | demonstrate against it, it is easy for someone to just say | "Hey everyone, this person is for kids getting raped." | pyuser583 wrote: | Because of course the EU wants a centralized EU-wide approach. | sysadm1n wrote: | > And it becomes obvious that child abuse websites stay up longer | | Versus | | > That is to enable the new agency to undermine end-to-end | encryption by mandating client-side scanning | | This article needs to be clear about what these agencies are | after: E2E encrypted messaging apps, or 'websites'. Because a | messaging app is not a 'website'. | hkwerf wrote: | It's even worse. In Germany, police and agencies responsible to | prosecute pedophiles that are active on those websites | supposedly do not take those websites down, even after they | gained control, at least in some cases. | | > In German: | https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/2021/Kindesmissbrauc... | | I remember another article, which I can't find right now, with | an interview, where a spokesperson explicitly said that taking | down the sites is not their responsibility. | jdthedisciple wrote: | The way I understood it is: both | | I might be totally mistaken though. | work_ta_220503 wrote: | I'd love to know what percentage of those CSAM numbers are | inflated by 14-17 yrs old sharing their own pictures (and their | SOs leaking to someone else w/o permission) versus what most of | the people imagine when government yells "CP!!!" | dijit wrote: | Just so you're aware. That is actually illegal and those teens | sending pictures to other teens can (and are) prosecuted. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | This might not be universally true soon. The Netherlands | proposed changing the law so teens are okay sexting one | another as long as there is mutual consent and it's not to | make money[0]. However, it has been stalled for a few years | now. (I initially thought it was accepted, but now things are | forecasted to be 2024). I also suspect that despite it being | illegal, very little action is undertaken while the above | requirements are still met. | | I do not know about other EU countries. | | [0]: https://www.mediawijsheid.nl/veelgestelde-vraag/is- | sexting-s... (Dutch) | [deleted] | judge2020 wrote: | Not the same metric, but related: | | > Approximately 200,000 people in 38 states are currently on | the sex offender registry for crimes they committed as | children. Some were put on the registry when they were as young | as eight years old. | | https://jlc.org/issues/juvenile-sex-offender-registry-sorna | jotm wrote: | Oh no, I saw myself naked in the mirror so many times as a | kid! | breakfastduck wrote: | 70-80% total is the suggested inflation, my guess on that. | zx85wes wrote: | I think that's a very conservative estimation. | aasasd wrote: | So Apple's snooping initiative produced exactly the result that | was predicted? The article doesn't quite expand on this, but it | sounds like the lawmakers and the agency are jolly happy to push | their own variant of client-side scanning on everyone. | | The whole story with client-side scanning resembles Snowden's | description of NSA's workday: people are so used to the idea of | surveillance day in and day out that it doesn't occur to them for | a second that it might not be appropriate. | Syonyk wrote: | https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... | | This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" | and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding | "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known | existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't | _you_ trust machine learning that can 't tell the difference | between a cat and a ferret to know what is and isn't CSAM? That's | a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in the | bathtub and the police smash down your door." | | I like this bit, though: | | > _The processing of users' personal data for the purposes of | detecting, reporting and removing online child sexual abuse has a | significant impact on users' rights and can be justified only in | view of the importance of preventing and combating online child | sexual abuse._ | BlargMcLarg wrote: | I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": | | > _As mentioned, detecting 'grooming' would have a positive | impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims | especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift | action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering | harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally | speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the | detection of the dissemination of known and new child sexual | abuse material), since it requires automatically scanning | through texts in interpersonal communications. It is important | to bear in mind in this regard that such scanning is often the | only possible way to detect it and that the technology used | does not 'understand' the content of the communications but | rather looks for known, pre-identified patterns that indicate | potential grooming. Detection technologies have also already | acquired a high degree of accuracy, although human oversight | and review remain necessary, and indicators of 'grooming' are | becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms | learn._ | | That whole paragraph sounds a lot more terrifying and | intrusive. At least they admit the flaws, but I haven't quite | had the best experience with the EU's way of handling this | stuff. | Syonyk wrote: | That's one of them, yes. I've not had the time to read the | whole thing today, and probably won't have time, so I'm | trying to encourage people to dig through it a bit themselves | and get a feel for just how "But the Children!" it is, as a | reason to violate every bit of privacy they think they can | get away with. | kingcharles wrote: | This is so 1984. Even if this remotely worked, how would they | tell between actual minors and adults roleplaying? | Syonyk wrote: | Smash down doors, get embarrassed a few times, pass | legislation to ban "roleplaying as a minor in text | conversations." Then there's no reason to be embarrassed | again! | | More practically, I would assume "age of the users of a | device" is a well-derived bit of information available to | anyone who asks for it with the proper letterhead. Or who | just helps themselves to it. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | My initial thought was to give adults an adult service, | but that also means adults need to provide information | (which a lot of adults wouldn't be okay with) so they can | filter the kids out. Then you'd still have to run the | proposal on every service kids and adults have access to. | Then on top of _that_ , you still need to filter out | cases where its just minors, but at the same time you | can't filter all of them because it might be a case of | sexual violence between minors. | | It's a headache no matter how I look at it. | causi wrote: | Legislation of a similar tone is already the law in many | places. Some places ban pornography of adults with flat | chests. Some places ban lewd drawings of characters who | aren't sufficiently curvaceous. Many platforms hosting | content such as literotica and erotic audio recordings | ban content that describes or roleplays as minors. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > This is so 1984 | | 1984 has never been about this. | | It's about the weaknesses of men, that would gladly change | a reduction of the chocolate ration into an increase, | because it's their job to lie and alter the past, believing | they are doing god's work. | | Also, in 1984 surveillance is secret, not publicly stated | in a formal document visible by everybody. | | Better examples of 1984 in action: the DDR, the NSA. | np- wrote: | > "becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms | learn" | | I mean considering Amazon has put in kajillions of dollars on | their learning algorithms and yet now in 2022 those | algorithms still aren't even smart enough to figure out | trivial stuff, like that I'm probably not gonna buy a second | air fryer immediately after buying a first one, and stop | advertising them to me. What hope do we have for this new | algorithm? | BlargMcLarg wrote: | It just showcases either the ones making the decision are | naive or they have an ulterior motive. They tried to | justify it with the following footnote: | | > _For example, Microsoft reports that the accuracy of its | grooming detection tool is 88%, meaning that out of 100 | conversations flagged as possible criminal solicitation of | children, 12 can be excluded upon review and will not be | reported to law enforcement; see annex 8 of the Impact | Assessment._ | | Of course, anyone could poke a dozen holes in this | statement. "Possible", so there still needs to be a ton of | review. Microsoft reporting on _its own_ detection tool. | Etc. | bliteben wrote: | Maybe they aren't optimizing for conversions but instead | for running out budgets? Amazon often has anti-consumer | practices, that likely evolved that way because it improves | bottom line, you'd think how hard they make it to search | reviews or to filter reviews for a specific version of a | product would be simple fixes, but likely testing has shown | those things decrease sales. | skummetmaelk wrote: | 95% of men aged 20-30 will be flagged for telling their | equally aged friends to "suck their dick". | [deleted] | usrn wrote: | A lot of people are going to start using XMPP/OMEMO. | judge2020 wrote: | No reason an XMPP client wouldn't be forced to include | this as well. Reminder that iMessage and Signal are | encrypted communications but are surely a target of this | sort of lawmaking. | usrn wrote: | With XMPP though you can use a smaller FOSS client on a | desktop PC. iMessage and Signal force you to use a recent | closed source client on a phone. | t0bia_s wrote: | Try Molly for Signal on Android. | rdl wrote: | I thought most of these proposals were around doing | device-local analysis and reporting (I suppose specific | clients might not, but if they can mandate this at the | device level, and make it default on iOS and Android, | they're going to get almost all users.) | uoaei wrote: | Device-local, yes, but I thought it was only for apps | under Apple's direct purview, ie, iMessage. | causi wrote: | _That 's a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in | the bathtub and the police smash down your door."_ | | There's also the simple fact that the reporting of CSAM | involves someone _seeing_ CSAM. You see it and then you report | it so it gets removed. Does the copy in your browser cache | incriminate you? I can also imagine someone deciding they need | to save it to forward to the police, whether or not that 's | useful. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police | smash down your door. | | Reminder: Europe is not US. | | Nobody can smash your door here without proper authorization | from a court. | | And even then, they would knock. | belter wrote: | You have it here on pag 7 | | "...Thereby, the proposed Regulation limits the interference | with the right to personal data protection of users and their | right to confidentiality of communications, to what is strictly | necessary for the purpose of ensuring the achievement of its | objectives, that is, laying down harmonised rules for | effectively preventing and combating online child sexual abuse | in the internal market..." | | For all effects, today the 11 of May, is the day the EU tried | to remove the right to privacy in communications in the name of | protecting children. From the hundreds of measures and police | actions they could take them seem to think this is the most | important. | breakfastduck wrote: | Why do you like that? | | They can focus on ONE justification which is 'acceptable'. But | one justification is all they need. They don't need more than | one for total access. | Syonyk wrote: | Just the brazen "Yeah, privacy and stuff are important, _But | the Children!_ " phrasing of it. They're not even trying to | pretend it's anything but an excuse anymore. | sharken wrote: | This is no different from the outrage with Apple and | client-side scanning of your device. | | Yes, we should absolutely do everything we can to protect | the children. But losing our privacy is not and can never | be an acceptable course of action. | | There is a frighteningly short distance from giving up | privacy due to CSAM, to a full-blown surveillance state. | DontMindit wrote: | Ironically this law will put the childrens futures at | enormous risk | cleandreams wrote: | This article basically says the approach is bad because it does | not have optimal efficiency. That is the wrong view. This | approach is giving an agency with legal power and money the scope | to address the problem. Any efficiency issues can be worked out | over time. What is important is that people who traffic in child | sex abuse images or consume or create them will face more real | legal obstacles and consequences. | | I disdain the chorus of pedophilia excuses that seems to be | taking place in this thread: it's grotesque. Just so you know. | DontMindit wrote: | We will soon have robot dogs patrolling our streets and barking | at us while we scream in anguish out of our windows for food if | this becomes law. Any rebellion or resistance will become | impossible forever once we cant communicate in private. You do | realise this? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-11 23:00 UTC)