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

311–320 of 336 posts

Re: Messaging and chat control

#311

Post by emteycz »

fabbari wrote: post #252
emteycz wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 count…

First, I did not admit anything, I asked a question.

Second, the issue is the presence of EU influence in my country: Whereas before joining the EU the local parliament would have a nuanced discussion and vote, often with results very different from partisan membership, now the party that won 4 years ago (that does NOT mean >50%) decides all by itself how it's going to vote in the council, and only the biggest issues of all can be helped, but breaking the government for every smaller thing is not feasible.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#312

Post by angry_octet »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #273
angry_octet wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You come here and quote a study by Christian Ministry Resources?

But you've leapt to your own interpretation of what I wrote, maybe go back and try again.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#313

Post by dmos62 »

dmos62 wrote: post #202
Zenst wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" car…

You get no argument from me. I just really enjoyed the pun.

You could turn it around: right assholes and what's left.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#314

Post by [deleted] »

y04nn wrote: post #71
qwerty456127 wrote: post #23

I 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.

True, it even has a name "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse". If it was about protecting the children there would be more prevention toward the children to make them aware and report any inappropriate act to a teacher, parent, relative that they can trust. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

[deleted]

Re: Messaging and chat control

#315

Post by kleiba »

thealienthing wrote: post #240
kleiba wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it this way: what is more important to you, the convenience of exchanging text messages with your friends, or keeping these conversations private?

Are you saying that these things must be mutually exclusive? It is entirely possible to have completely private and convenient conversations between two parties.

No, I'm not. It is a thought experiment to determine for yourself the value of privacy in a more tangible way. Like, if you were made to choose between one or the other, which one would you take?

That's different from arguing that they are mutually exclusive which I am not.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#316

Post by kleiba »

mdp2021 wrote: post #216
kleiba wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it this way: what is more important to you, the convenience of exchanging text messages with your friends, or keeping these conversations private?

What is your point, given that many will reply "what is more important is dignity, so the choice is for privacy"?

The point is to give an example for my original tenet, that privacy often is valued as a theoretical concept but that people are apparently willing to give it up rather quickly for something else in return. Or, from a different point of view, how much convenience are you willing to give up for your privacy?

For example, I used to be on the extreme "pro privacy" end of the spectrum. But it is clear that philosophically speaking, privacy for everyone is not a completely positive ideal in all contexts. And that naturally raises the question about what other values privacy competes with, and how they should be balanced.

Intuitively, "convenience" should perhaps be considered less important than "privacy", but interestingly that's not what we observe actually happening in the real world.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#317

Post by gawth »

camgunz wrote: post #305
nonbirithm wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CSAM is still problematic, though. The consensus is that creates a market that incentivizes the abuse of children, because you cannot produce CSAM without CSA. It seems to be the one of the few classes of data that is an exception to the standard of privacy that is applied to almost all other data, to the point that Apple took action against it. Dozens of other countries besides the US also agree, and outlaw that cla…

I was gonna write a whole thing, but mostly I just wanted to say we'll be able to deepfake CSAM inside of 10 years, no question, so this whole thing is moot.

I think this is a massively important point that needs further consideration.

If a person can generate images on demand any system based on recognising known images is immediately bypassed.

AI image classification will be your only option but the false positive volumes have the potential to be massive, swamping any follow up investigation.

Re: Messaging and chat control

#318

Post by stinos »

Accacin wrote: post #107
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 wouldn't be surprised if the UK government announced it would be re-applying to be in the EU just for this new law (I'm joking.. I hope).

Or they just create their own version https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe...

Re: Messaging and chat control

#319

Post by aj3 »

foerbert wrote: post #306
aj3 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This option is transparent to the user and easy to change. Also, anyone who has done IT support will appreciate that yeah regular users actually want / need backups enabled by default, it's often a life saver for them.

Apple doesn't need the keys to enable backups. And the mere fact it's a default makes it a significant problem when discussing it as a popular and widespread E2E messenger. It would be more borderline if it was a required configuration choice with no default that clearly disclaimed the ramifications. Even then, you have the issue that you are not the only person with a copy of the conversation. Your partner - or part…

Users need backups to protect from a device loss scenario. Apple needs to have keys for that to work. They also can’t rely on key derivation because users forget their Apple ID passwords all the time.

It is relevant because this requirement necessarily conflicts with strong e2ee. And since Apple is designing devices for end users that don’t necessarily even know or care what e2ee is, it seems completely reasonable to have defaults that will optimize for the problems that are relevant for the majority of users (losing decide and forgetting your password) while making strong e2ee a few clicks away to those who need it (and understand associated tradeoffs).

Post reply on HN