Live data from Hacker News

Messaging and chat control

patrick-breyer.de

241–250 of 336 posts

Re: Messaging and chat control

#241
post #211

Why exactly are we believing the author's claims? The link on the supposed "2.0" announcement on mandatory CSAM scanning leads to no such annoucement. Nor does any of the other 50 links on the page, as far as I can tell.

If you have been following this site for a while then you know that it is a truth universally acknowledged (well - on HN), that the EU wants to "ban encryption".

I keep having the same question as you, and will refrain from joining the pitchfork party until I see actual proof.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#242
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…

Child protective services will have a field day with this. Take away all the children!

Re: Messaging and chat control

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it becomes mandatory for email providers to screen emails, will services such as Protonmail become illegal in the EU? Protonmail should already be illegal in the EU because they operate under swiss mass-surveilance laws and cooperate with US-American law enforcement. Both of which violates the GDPR if they do business in an EU state. > Since they don't have access to their users' email content because of encrypt…

> Protonmail should already be illegal in the EU because they operate under swiss mass-surveilance laws and cooperate with US-American law enforcement. :O Seriously? Wow, off to research this I go... That's really disappointing as a paying user. I can't believe I wasn't across this.

You can choose which narration you would believe. It is neverending story.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#244
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…

> The article mentions that 40% of CP investigations in Germany are started against minors (implied: through sexting), which shows that this concern is not purely theoretical at all. I've read news about this. Teenager sends nude photos to her boyfriend, calls the cops after the break up and they proceed to nearly ruin his life by threatening lifetime sex offender registration. The implication that the girl produced…

Why does this need to be gendered?

Re: Messaging and chat control

#245
post #149
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.

What obvious reasons? If it was legal to make porn with 16 year olds, you can bet that it would be made and sold. (It's illegal of course.)

Re: Messaging and chat control

#246
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article mentions that 40% of CP investigations in Germany are started against minors (implied: through sexting), which shows that this concern is not purely theoretical at all. I've read news about this. Teenager sends nude photos to her boyfriend, calls the cops after the break up and they proceed to nearly ruin his life by threatening lifetime sex offender registration. The implication that the girl produced…

Why does this need to be gendered?

Ask the real questions Lammy.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#247
post #95

I want to cry if is see such dangerous things. Most European parties send unknown politicians to Strasbourg and let them vote on important topics with low media coverage. Later the local politicians - which act mostly in Bruessels - claim that they have no way but follow Strasbourgs/Bruessels decisions and write even worse state laws upon it. I think we need a new Europe state with a actual parliament in charge, whic…

Ever more centralisation of power is the EU's prime directive. If you believe power should rest with the people, you should be against the EU.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#248
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If That's not how a democracy works. Unless you're forcibly prevented from voting - or are denied the right to - that's not the case. It is not an illegitimate vote if you decide not to vote. In the EU Parliament elections it's just people deciding not to vote. As you yourself said: "is a kind of a vote too". Let me make a practical example: we are having a pizza party and we have a vote for what pizza to order, you…

No that is a wrong analogy. The correct analogy to not participating in the vote would be: I would say "there shouldn't be any pizza party vote, because the options all suck, and I do not want any pizza, everybody go home". If more than 50% of people in the room say that, the pizza party vote is illegitimate.

Nope - that's not correct: saying "there shouldn't be any pizza party" is a vote! If more than 50% of the people invited at the party say: "We should actually get salad!" - then, guess what? You would get salad.

Being silent - not voting - is NOT the same as voting against something. Not even close.

If the real reason for why over 50% of the people don't vote was because they don't like any of the parties then they could join up and create an alternative. But this is not what happens.

In the real world when you don't vote you're doing two things:

1 - you're saying you don't care because you find all the options not to your liking;

2 - you're also saying you can't be bothered with creating one.

As long as none is preventing you with addressing the second part: you are making a deliberate choice to not engage in the democratic process. You understand the consequences of that (in)action and you accept them. In no way that invalidates the choices made by the people who engage in it.

Saying that you CHOOSING not participate in the process makes it invalid is an offence to the people who fought to give you that choice and to the people that - to this date - are not given that option.

I'll say this one last time: this defeatist attitude towards the democratic process is exactly what the political establishment and the lobbies who enrich them are counting on, and this is why I considered it one of the main issues with democracy today.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party [0] is doing more for the cause of democracy than people who decide that nothing is going to change, we are going to get anchovy pizza, so why bother with voting.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_...

Edit: Fixed typo - twice

Re: Messaging and chat control

#249
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article mentions that 40% of CP investigations in Germany are started against minors (implied: through sexting), which shows that this concern is not purely theoretical at all. I've read news about this. Teenager sends nude photos to her boyfriend, calls the cops after the break up and they proceed to nearly ruin his life by threatening lifetime sex offender registration. The implication that the girl produced…

Why does this need to be gendered?

It's the story I remember reading on the news article. Anything else would be fabrication.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#250
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…

"Child porn" is a smokescreen. It's what every privacy advocate saw coming: find the worst, most repugnant thing possible and use it to backdoor encryption. It's not a dream, and it's really happening, right now.

And, they referred to us as the "screeching minority".
Post reply on HN