If 99% then why not Facebooks systems include AI to catch bad guys before they act and imprison’em in a benevolent virtual reality using oculus.
Classic Spielberg called ’Minority Report’ with underwater ‘precogs’
Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
441–450 of 592 posts
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#442> We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety. Oh, so you’re asking for more end-to-end encryption? > While the letter acknowledges that Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content t…
"Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation"
Reminds me of this story: "Back during World War II, the RAF lost a lot of planes to German anti-aircraft fire. So they decided to armor them up. But where to put the armor? The obvious answer was to look at planes that returned from missions, count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire.Obvious but wrong. As Hungarian-born mathematician Abraham Wald explained at the time, if a plane makes it back safely even though it has, say, a bunch of bullet holes in its wings, it means that bullet holes in the wings aren’t very dangerous. What you really want to do is armor up the areas that, on average, don’t have any bullet holes. Why? Because planes with bullet holes in those places never made it back."
Qoute from https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/counterintuit...
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#443> mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. Oh, bull crap. By this argument, literally no protection or liberty that allows even one child to be harmed could ever be tolerated. Why stop at vetting baby-sitters or teachers? We ought to require mandatory background checks for every person who ever visits a family or goes into a public space that might contain children. Law enforcement also o…
The argument about children is easily invalidated by the fact, that for some reason that during the Vietnam / Afghanistan / Irak war many children were harmed for much less than everybody's privacy.
Yes. Mr. Attorney General can also demonstrate his concern for children by investigating the ICE and their detention facilities.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like, to ensure privacy, we need an equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction: the strategic introduction of a secondary Nash equilibrium that's so bad that it makes it obvious that we should choose the primary equilibrium. Right now, people have no clear sense on what "a gradual erosion of privacy at the hands of the government" really means . We haven't seen a 100% solid example of what any country would do…
But we aren't "ensuring" privacy; we're inventing whole new forms of privacy. There has never been a private and secure channel to communicate with thousands of strangers across the world. Simply acting like this brand new thing is an obvious and unquestioned good is naive.
This "never before seen" argument cuts both ways, though. There has also never been a full, verbatim record of all of one's communications, personal notes, searches of the equivalent of the world's largest encyclopedia, precise location over time, and myriad other details, carried in one's pocket and/or magically copied to a central location at which someone can perform instantaneous bulk keyword searches. The raw data and processing power over that data that governments have, now, is completely unprecedented in the history of the world.
We used to be protected by the ephemeral nature of 99% of life and by the inability for anyone to centrally view or mechanically process the other 1% (letters, diaries, etc). This is just as much argument for strong protection as your argument goes against strong protection.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why US healthcare is the standard of the world. Because it’s so profitable. /s
I mean, it has to be, the free market would correct it if it weren't, right? /s
Fields other than cosmetic surgery aren't allowed to operate through a free market http://healthblog.ncpathinktank.org/why-cant-the-market-for-...
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#446Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#447I find it strange that there isn't already some precedent from the supreme court on the right to encrypt under the second amendment. This isn't a new idea [1] and the debate about whether or not encryption is a fundamental right is already going on for ages...
If Americans cared so much about their freedom to protect themselves from their government, rationally it would make far more sense to be up on the fence about encryption than about firearms.
[1] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3696/is-the-right-to...
[Edit] I don't want to start a flame war about guns, I'm genuinely curious about what the law would say about encryption under the second amendment.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#448But what’s app already leaked the private keys and is owned by FB. Zuck doesn’t care either.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should anyone give a shit? Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. I for one am not willing to give up any freedoms in order to prevent the sharing of such vile material. Perhaps the creation, but not the sharing.
The sharing creates demand. Producers increase supply. You should read more about this issue. NYT just did a bunch of great articles that will give you perspective.
Sharing only creates demand if money or other videos (or other things of interest to the original perpetrator) are given in exchange. And honestly, I expect the vast majority of abusers to be doing it either for fun (so they'd stop sharing videos, but keep raping) or for the money. Sometimes I wonder if what people really want is just to stop the transmission of child porn so they can go back to pretending it doesn't exist...
Child porn piracy is an essentially victimless crime.
Note: In the above I am considering the generic example of "child porn" to be broadcasting the forcible rape of prepubescents, not 17 year olds sending each other naughty pictures, which is what most content matching the US legal definition is (the UK one is just stupid as it includes drawings).
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#450> We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety. Oh, so you’re asking for more end-to-end encryption? > While the letter acknowledges that Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content t…
"Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation" Reminds me of this story: "Back during World War II, the RAF lost a lot of planes to German anti-aircraft fire. So they decided to armor them up. But where to put the armor? The obvious answer was to look at planes that returned from missions, count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor…
Imagine being able to design a plane, but not immediately recognizing that.