Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Messaging and chat control

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 336 posts

Re: Messaging and chat control

#151

Post by MauranKilom »

hhlbf wrote: post #113
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do realize Switzerland doesn't actually use direct democracy for things that matter and when they do they often end up with xenophobic laws. I don't even want to talk about town assemblies voting on naturalisation decisions.

So if they want to be xenophobic, what's the problem? It's their country and they can do whatever they want with it.

"So if they want to kill all the Jews, what's the problem? It's their country and they can do whatever they want with it."

Creating laws based on popularity makes populism rule. Hence why democracy usually has an explicit legislative branch abstracting over individual sentiments. That helps prevent policy from being devised through an overly greedy algorithm.

That is not to say it prevents all these problems. But it evidently helps.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#152

Post by effie »

fabbari wrote: post #64
effie wrote: post #13

It's agendas like these when you realize submitting your country laws to legislation from Brusel was a fatal error.

I think that the fatal error is not going and vote for the European Parliament elections [0]. You don't get to complain when you decide not to participate in the democratic process. Even if this was passed by the Council of the EU [1] it would be passed by ministers representing over 55% of the states - and over 65% of the EU population - and could be blocked by 4 countries. Now - we can discuss if a government is a…

> You don't get to complain when you decide not to participate in the democratic process.

You can complain either way. Not participating means you are not participating, and is a kind of a vote too. If <50% people vote, then the vote is arguably illegitimate.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#153

Post by aj3 »

lucb1e wrote: post #136
st_goliath wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, you must be new to this game. Here's the deal: none of this is about, or for the children. It's just a bullshit excuse to label anyone who opposes it a pedo. Same goes if "think about the terrorists" is used instead, which might come around soon-ish, since we started this round with "think about the children". OT: if somebody does have some statistics, that might actually be interesting; don't let me discourage y…

Furthermore, it does not matter in the slightest what number it turns out to be. It's going to be nonzero, it's going to continue to be nonzero no matter what legislation you introduce, and so you can always use this argument for more surveillance because people (especially parents, but mostly just everyone, and understandably) get very upset about this topic.

Nirvana / perfect solution fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Re: Messaging and chat control

#154

Post by ceilingcorner »

aj3 wrote: post #148
ceilingcorner wrote: post #110

I wonder if all of this (Apple, Chatcontrol, etc.) will spark a backlash against computing devices. The government can't rifle through your physical photos to search for [bad thing], at least for the moment. Will we see a resurgence of Instamatic cameras and other offline-first devices? Depressingly, I'm sure most people won't care. But hey, I can hope.

Analogies between IT and physical world are often less than helpful but before digital photos most people would be developing photos in specialized studios. If these studios noticed what they thought was CSAM they would report it to police. One could of course develop photos themselves (like one can selfhost everything today), but as soon as other parties get involved they can (and should) report problematic material…

Polaroids have been around for quite some time and don't require a photo studio.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#155

Post by longtom »

anfelor wrote: post #98

The scary thing about this is that many people have images that look like child porn at home: Family photos of naked grandchildren playing at the sea or in the mud, as well as sexting between consenting teenagers. There is no way automatic classification can distinguish these from real child porn, because they look almost identical and thus many private pictures will be shared with the government. This not only infri…

> 40% of CP investigations in Germany are started against minors

This in particular seems like such a silly outcome of over-regulation and bureaucracy. Amazing. Research suggests most child sexual abuse does not have much of a long-term effect at all:

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A-replicatio...

This (of course!) does not mean it is good or should be done, but it suggests this is not an urgent issue, certainly not one that can justify abolishing privacy, especially when these measures only catch the small fish, not the large trafficking rings who will probably switch to different means of communication once theirs gets compromised.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#157

Post by lucb1e »

mkl95 wrote: post #149
lucb1e wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure porn involving 16-17 year olds in the Netherlands is also very illegal though, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe porn involving 16 year olds is still legal in the Netherlands. Which doesn't mean it is being commercially produced anymore, for obvious reasons. Maybe a Dutch reader can provide more insight into this.

Okay enough opinions, let's look this up. Wikipedia cites the law saying it's 18 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderpornografie#Wetgeving_in...

It even includes people that "appear to be under 18" even if they turn out not to be. ("[...] afbeelding – van een seksuele gedraging, waarbij iemand die kennelijk de leeftijd van achttien jaar nog niet heeft bereikt, is betrokken of schijnbaar is betrokken, [...]")

What I also found interesting is:

> Het voorontwerp Wet seksuele misdrijven stelt niet langer strafbaar degene die een visuele weergave van een seksuele gedraging of een gegevensdrager bevattende een visuele weergave van een seksuele gedraging, waarbij hijzelf of een andere persoon die de leeftijd van achttien jaren nog niet heeft bereikt is betrokken, in het kader van een gelijkwaardige situatie tussen leeftijdsgenoten uitsluitend voor privégebruik vervaardigt, in bezit heeft of met die ander deelt.

Short translation: sending or owning pictures of sexual acts involving an <18yo is not illegal if it concerns private use between persons of similar age in an 'equality situation' (I interpret this as meaning/implying 'consensual').

Re: Messaging and chat control

#158

Post by Zenst »

dmos62 wrote: post #97
kristjank wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my fault that I was too young to vote at the last EU elections. That's changed since and you bet your ass that I'll vote for the right people when I'm able to. Also raising awareness and promoting a petition about an issue isn't the same as raising pitchforks. I'm thinking there's a subtext here...

I chuckled when you said "the right people". Like, there's the right people, and then what's left. Get it? Right and left. Puns.

The whole polarization of political issues into right and left is and always will distract from the issues being debated and more so, ends up derailing any debate and discourse about the issues as they get drowned out by the labels.

Very easy to label something right wing or left wing to distract from the issue at debate and it has become very much a political tool in much the same way the "think of the children" card is played.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#160

Post by cwizou »

sneak wrote: post #16
cwizou wrote: post #10

Assuming this is correct (I only followed a couple of links, but it would be the EU planning to mandate content scan for CSAM on all e-mail and messaging platforms, after making it legal/optional already to do so earlier this year), I guess this answer the question of why Apple released their tech. While it made little sense on iCloud Photos, they can add the exact same client-side scanning to iMessage and keep it (m…

iMessage has an e2e backdoor on by default in the form of plaintext escrow via iCloud Backup (not e2e). iMessage is, in practice today, no longer e2e. Apple knows this and intentionally preserves this backdoor for the FBI: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZK1CT

This is why I wrote mostly. Both iCloud backups and Messages on iCloud either keep plain backups or a decryption key.

But if you don't use iCloud backups your end is still, as far as we know, encrypted.

What happens on the other end is out of your control in all cases.

Post reply on HN