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

271–280 of 336 posts

Re: Messaging and chat control

#271

Post by BiteCode_dev »

angry_octet wrote: post #268
ceilingcorner wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> catholic puritan morality Might want to check your terms here.

Indeed. But it strikes me that the places with the most rigorous enforcement of theological dominance also have the worst child abuse problems. Or, as an AI would decide, men in robes can't be trusted.

Well if you tell people they are sinners for being humans (having body parts), you get frustrated humans.

I have been in very rigid religous countries. The men in the internet shops were all whatching hardcore porn, and my female friends were harassed in the street.

So it's not men in robes, you can be deeply religious and have a and loving view of the world.

But puritanism, and sexually frustrated people ashamed of even existing, are bound to generate unhappiness.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#272

Post by kook_throwaway »

edanm wrote: post #261
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…

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in the States, sending naked pictures of teens is illegal, even if it's a picture of yourself. If you send naked selfies to someone, you could be charged with distribution of child pornography if you are a teenager. I'm also fairly sure I heard that even possessing naked selfies is considered illegal, at least in some states, e.g. this article about a teenager facing 10 year…

The law and morality are often fundamentally opposed. Saudi Arabia punishes homosexuality with the death penalty, and Apple happily removed the encrypted communications from their phones so they could continue selling in that country.

Illegal or not, comparing two teens that sent naked selfies to each other is not even remotely similar to involuntary child abuse from an adult.

>this article about a teenager facing 10 years in prison for having pictures of himself naked at 16 years old on his phone

That anyone would even consider spending taxpayer money to lock up a 16 year old for his own picture shows a colossal failure of government on every level Legislative, judicial, and executive. The DA stacked 5 charges and saddled them with up to a decade so the kids would be afraid to even go to court. In any sane judicial system that case would be laughed out of the courtroom and it's telling that they were presumably advised by a lawyer to take the plea bargain.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#273

Post by ceilingcorner »

angry_octet wrote: post #268
ceilingcorner wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> catholic puritan morality Might want to check your terms here.

Indeed. But it strikes me that the places with the most rigorous enforcement of theological dominance also have the worst child abuse problems. Or, as an AI would decide, men in robes can't be trusted.

> the places with the most rigorous enforcement of theological dominance also have the worst child abuse problems.

Citation needed. The data doesn't back up that claim, contrary to the media's narrative.

A report which Christian Ministry Resources (CMR) released in 2002 stated that contrary to popular opinion, there are more allegations of child sexual abuse in Protestant congregations than there are in Catholic ones, and that sexual violence is most often committed by volunteers rather than by priests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...

Catholic clergy aren't more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general. The 4 percent figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/2...

Re: Messaging and chat control

#274

Post by [deleted] »

Lammy wrote: post #244
matheusmoreira wrote: post #230

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?

[deleted]

Re: Messaging and chat control

#275

Post by scrollaway »

slickrick216 wrote: post #259
scrollaway wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The fact you had to call out my grammar shows how weak your argument is

What on earth are you talking about? I don't call out people's grammar.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#276

Post by jayjader »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #199
Telemakhos wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone once explained to me that any webmail service is inherently able to read your mail: otherwise it could not display your mail to you. True end-to-end encryption means keeping your private keys client-side and the client on a computer over which you have full physical control.

You are absolutely correct, with some caveats. Browser client can generate keys on clientside and allow to offload them as a file to be used on other devices. Our own web XMPP client does that. But Protonmail does not work like this. Verification is very simple: if you log in on a new device and see all your content while using only login and password to authenticate yourself, then the content stored on a server is N…

> if you log in on a new device and see all your content while using only login and password to authenticate yourself

What about if the encryption key is derived from your password? This is common enough for "encrypt file with a password" services, I've personally implemented it in-browser as part of a small project.

Now, having your account password be the same as the email decryption password is also probably a bad idea, but we're far from the server owner being able to read your emails.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#277

Post by dang »

zibzab wrote: post #19
kristjank wrote: post #3

I think this isn't getting nearly enough traction, especially considering how undemocratic EU's legislative procedures can get. Considering the lack of direct democracy in the European Union, exposure and public protest is the only viable way to oppose this legislature. There's also an ongoing petition against the legislature: https://www.openpetition.eu/petition/online/preserve-eprivac...

Hold your horses, put down the pitchforks. You realise the author is a _member of the European Parliament_?? And at least in my corner of EU we vote on who to send to EU parliament. You can vote on whoever you want in the national elections and then vote for the pirate party for the EU seat. Edit: from your comment history I guess you vote far right, which is usually the part of EU pushing hardest for these measures?…

Please keep name-calling and personal attacks out of your comments here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Messaging and chat control

#279

Post by tomxor »

tremon wrote: post #171
tomxor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we vote on who to send to EU parliament. You are describing a representative democracy, the parent pointed out the lack of direct democracy in the process. And I would tend to agree that there needs to be more direct democracy involved at some point in the policy making process to accommodate just such a scenario where it's clear the vast majority are not happy with the result. Representative democracy has it's pla…

"direct democracy" is a no-true-scotsman type fallacy, as you can use it to keep moving the goalposts indefinitely. Even Switzerland, the much-touted example of "direct democracy" has a parliament of elected representatives.

You will note I did not suggest a "true democracy" replace the entire process, that would be completely impractical, rarely does it work at scale.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#280

Post by pseudalopex »

azinman2 wrote: post #269
pseudalopex wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But the point is there’s an existing database. Either you have a photo in that database, or you don’t. So your kids naked photos don’t get triggered. And even if that photo is legal, not only is there human verification and minimum quantities required, it would be very strange for you to have in your iCloud photos that were part of CP collection sets regardless of content.

Their point was CSAM means especially bad CP. Your points were different.

It's a perceptual hash. Matches don't have to be exact. And people have engineered collisions for other perceptual hash algorithms. What a computer sees and what a person sees can be very different.

People have said the human verification just involves the visual derivative of the suspect image. Apple didn't explain what that is really. And human verification doesn't reassure people who object to anyone viewing their private photos without their consent for any reason.

People have said any images collected during an investigation go in the database. Do you think people who collect explicit photos of 17 year olds don't collect explicit photos of 18 year olds?

Post reply on HN