Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see them walking embedded in the crowds in Paris. They tend to follow the action if a particular place 'dies out'. > it was particularly shocking. Why so vague?
Have I not typed enough?
That is entirely up to you.
Messaging and chat control
251–260 of 336 posts
Re: Messaging and chat control
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am replying to all the posts pushing this defeatist agenda. Not only it's wrong, but it's also dangerous. It is representatives of the countries in the Council of the EU voting these legislations through: hold them accountable as you would hold them accountable locally. Don't fall for the narration of the EU as a third party where your local representatives have no say. If four countries veto the bill, the bill is…
How am I supposed to keep the party that I did not vote for (25% did) accountable? Nobody is gonna disrupt the government because of "such small issues".
So - first of all you're admitting that the issue is not the Council of the EU, it's that your own country's representative can't be held accountable for his vote in the Council by you.
Political activism is about making these "small issues" big and visible. It's not easy, it's not cheap and it doesn't always work. Yet it's something that can and should be done at the local level. And I really mean: local.
Your country's representative is of a political party that - I am guessing here - also runs in local elections. Your town, your province, your region - and that's how you start. You possibly can't talk to your ministers, but you can talk to your local politicians. Make sure they understand that their local power will see the consequences of national and EU politics, let them bubble up the issue.
Will it work for sure? Probably not, maybe yes. Is it better than taking ourselves out of the equation? Absolutely yes! Making sure that the local politicians understand that their national counterparts will affect their local success is a way of making them accountable.
Re: Messaging and chat control
#253For those of us who need more security, which most of us expect from the state, mass surveillance will surely help. For those of us who insist on breaking the law this will become a problem.
How many people need more security coming from the state in EU? /rhetorical question
I, for one, have been assaulted with my children, by a guy they took a year to hopefully catch and put in jail, where he currently stays, I even have videos of the guy on youtube if you want to see him, he really looks like a nazi except without the teeth which he lost consuming crack.
I hope this won't be your case, living in fear with your children for a year is a bad experience, not to mention the hospital and sequels. I wish "hope" was more that we could do, this new security systems are an answer.
If you don't thrust your government with this, perhaps you should apply to work on it in defense - surely, this will create quite some tech jobs - so that you be in charge. Actually, if you have experience working in defense, you might already know that there's plenty of work catching criminals, there's definitely no time for anything less critical, despite whatever grounds you build fear of dystopia on.
We are not in a George Orwell dystopia but actually have real lives to save and really dangerous criminals to stop despite what you may think. And I'm really glad that you live in a place where you feel safe and I hope this stays this way, and I'm really happy for you that you have not lost a child to criminality, or a friend to terrorism, but keep in mind it's not the case of everyone.
We can't all be like famous french leftist Mathieu Kassovitz and look at a mother in the eyes and tell her that the event of the death of her child is just "a miscellaneous event" and that there's nothing to do about it, that's it's the way it's supposed to be. I mean, go ahead and be my guest, explain to her that mass surveillance will put her into more danger than not. Her dystopia is probably very different than yours, and much more real. I'm sorry, but I'm siding with the victims here, from CP to whatever.
If we can save even just 1 child, shouldn't we because you are scared that a government employee would be reading your flirts? I don't understand how you people not only can just be against more security, but also willing to sacrifice children to protect your "privacy" (flirts, dickpics) which nobody working in defense actually gives a flying f** about.
And Patrick Breyer, if you're reading me, next time you want to make an argument about "minors sexting", I would suggest you find a way that does not make you look like a pervert who wants to keep it easy for minors to send him nudes, cause it kind of looks like that from where I'm standing.
What kind of congressman in their sane mind would vote against this? None. Does that mean it is perfect? No, but it's a start, and I believe we will improve from our mistakes, we have to start somewhere. This is the start of new era of security, which many of us pay taxes for, we deserve this, and hopefully it's not some "pirate party", or "pedo party", or "criminal party", or "human rights defender party" who is going to stop us from getting there.
Re: Messaging and chat control
#254I wonder how much people there actually are who don't yet know child porn is a classic bullshit excuse governments use every time they want more control over the Internet. It's so classic, so blatant it feels cringy already. Not even for a second I would believe they do this to actually protect children.
Whenever a politician invokes "think of the children", ask them about their funding of Child Protection Services. Any political action that's said to be under the umbrella of "think of the children" that doesn't provide additional funding to existing Child Protection Services is for reasons other than child protection. Additionally, it's actively working against helping children because the funds for "this new thing"…
> Of course, removing children from danger is often removing them from their parents / legal guardians, which comes with its own set of risks.
What number of false positives would you tolerate?
Re: Messaging and chat control
#255The 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…
In Apple's defense here, there seems to be a reason they're using the longer acronym CSAM. It means not just pictures of people without clothes on, but actual images/video of children being abused. Stuff that would likely provoke you or me or other normal people into acts of extreme violence against the perpetrators if we ever got the chance. The real danger with Apple's system is that there's zero accountability in…
[deleted]
Re: Messaging and chat control
#256The 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…
In Apple's defense here, there seems to be a reason they're using the longer acronym CSAM. It means not just pictures of people without clothes on, but actual images/video of children being abused. Stuff that would likely provoke you or me or other normal people into acts of extreme violence against the perpetrators if we ever got the chance. The real danger with Apple's system is that there's zero accountability in…
> It means not just pictures of people without clothes on, but actual images/video of children being abused.
Who said that?
They're the same legally. People have said NCMEC's database includes entirely legal images. And groups like NCMEC have tried to rename child pornography for years.
Re: Messaging and chat control
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The abuses rationalized by the War on Terror, such as mass surveillance and profiling haven't been walked back. Yet many somehow believe vaccine passports won't be similarly result in mission creep and abuse. More recently it has been suggested to expand the designation of terrorist to include those who have concerns about this process. When has government willingly returned liberties taken under emergency pretenses?…
> When has government willingly returned liberties taken under emergency pretenses? How about the dozens of times already since the start of this pandemic? Every time case rates drop even slightly, they've rushed to re-open businesses, eliminate mask rules and limitations on gatherings.
There have been some outliers like Florida's Ron DeSantis, but for the most part lockdowns have been on and off. The CDC now recommends masking for vaccinated individuals. Restrict, loosen restrictions and then tighten restrictions further. Repeat as necessary. Say what you will of some of the temporary restorations of freedom of movement, but they've normalized putting people on house arrest.
The goal in my view appears to be getting people onboard with the vaccine passports. Once implemented it will be a stepping stone towards CBDC, UBI and social credit scores.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-23/digita...
Re: Messaging and chat control
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, the problem is usually the European Council and not the Commission or the Parliament. Meaning, it's still the countries…
Any examples? At least the Council has people with mandate from the countries...
> At least the Council has people with mandate from the countries
Not in every country. More often, the head of the government is voted for by the national parliament, meaning, only the people having installed them have a form of mandate. (Which is also true for the Commission, BTW.) The people with the actual mandate are in the European Parliament.
Re: Messaging and chat control
#259It’s the same people who believe in medical apartheid that are bringing this in. All under the guise of the greater good. Who is it good for because it’s not for the publics. Law enforcement brutality exists online too and all over the world. It’s not simply a US phenomenon. Sickens me that they use children as an excuse. If they really gave a crap about kids there is so much that could be done right now.
> It’s the same people who believe in medical apartheid that are bringing this in. Regardless of what you call your antivax rhetoric, this is utterly wrong. It's not the same people. There's no fucking correlation here beyond "politics is brought to you by politicians" so stop using an issue HN is upset about to try to prop up your pet peeves. I too can start saying that this shit you're upset about is brought to you…
First of all I’m vaxed. Second of all it is in fact the same people. I live in an EU country and it’s the EU political establishment and their allies that are doing this.
The fact you had to call out my grammar shows how weak your argument is. You are a literal grammar nazi. With language like “parasite” you really are showing your facist side aren’t you.
Re: Messaging and chat control
#260It’s the same people who believe in medical apartheid that are bringing this in. All under the guise of the greater good. Who is it good for because it’s not for the publics. Law enforcement brutality exists online too and all over the world. It’s not simply a US phenomenon. Sickens me that they use children as an excuse. If they really gave a crap about kids there is so much that could be done right now.
Medical apartheid? What’s that referring to?
EU covid pass and medical discrimination now in Europe but also world wide.