European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids • Hacker News Board

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#31

Post by skummetmaelk » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #27

Syonyk wrote: post #21

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is a…

I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": > As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the d…

95% of men aged 20-30 will be flagged for telling their equally aged friends to "suck their dick".

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#32

Post by HL33tibCe7 » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:26 PM UTC

The EU is honestly just so awful when it comes to anything relating to technology. The number of insane proposals I’ve seen from them over the years… It’s like they’ve got the worst political takes on tech from each EU country and smushed them together into a big ball of awfulness.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#33

Post by usrn » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

skummetmaelk wrote: post #31

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": > As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the d…

95% of men aged 20-30 will be flagged for telling their equally aged friends to "suck their dick".

A lot of people are going to start using XMPP/OMEMO.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#34

Post by j_san » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #30

> to protecting kids Let's be clear, this has nothing to do with protecting kids and everything with backdoors. The idea here is that anyone that opposes this can be easily accused of being a child molestor.

I very opposed to the proposal of the commission - in fact I even went to a demonstration today against it. It's a horrible privacy invasion and very bad in many different ways, but...

But I think your take is not true. I can imagine that it might just be a really misinformed proposal to actually go against child abuse. I hope.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#35

Post by kingcharles » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #27

Syonyk wrote: post #21

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is a…

I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": > As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the d…

This is so 1984. Even if this remotely worked, how would they tell between actual minors and adults roleplaying?

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#36

Post by kingcharles » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

j_san wrote: post #34

exabrial wrote: post #30

> to protecting kids Let's be clear, this has nothing to do with protecting kids and everything with backdoors. The idea here is that anyone that opposes this can be easily accused of being a child molestor.

I very opposed to the proposal of the commission - in fact I even went to a demonstration today against it. It's a horrible privacy invasion and very bad in many different ways, but... But I think your take is not true. I can imagine that it might just be a really misinformed proposal to actually go against child abuse. I hope.

I think the poster above you is right, though. If you demonstrate against it, it is easy for someone to just say "Hey everyone, this person is for kids getting raped."

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#37

Post by rdl » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

usrn wrote: post #33

skummetmaelk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% of men aged 20-30 will be flagged for telling their equally aged friends to "suck their dick".

A lot of people are going to start using XMPP/OMEMO.

I thought most of these proposals were around doing device-local analysis and reporting (I suppose specific clients might not, but if they can mandate this at the device level, and make it default on iOS and Android, they're going to get almost all users.)

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#38

Post by boredumb » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #28

boredumb wrote: post #4

Now that covid is waning, we're back to 'the kids' in order to allow governments absurd amounts of power over individuals. None of these excuses are put forth in order to further the argument, it's to create a trap for detractors and be able to label them as evil people, killing grandma, hating kids, supporting terror, etc etc.

Just for the record, one can believe in Covid restrictions of 2020 and also believe this CSAM action is absurd and anti-privacy. Equating them is shallow at best and misleading at worst.

One can believe in covid restrictions, but they would be naive if they think there wasn't a huge cost imposed on individuals and it's not immediately obvious that more restrictions meant less disease. Dismissing governments ability to utilize fear in order to enact powers they previously didn't hold, just because one fear is something held more dearly is how all of these things pass. Child abuse and covid are both real and both are and were used to give government power that most free societies would reject outright and without further question if neither existed.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#39

Post by zx85wes » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

breakfastduck wrote: post #22

work_ta_220503 wrote: post #14

I'd love to know what percentage of those CSAM numbers are inflated by 14-17 yrs old sharing their own pictures (and their SOs leaking to someone else w/o permission) versus what most of the people imagine when government yells "CP!!!"

70-80% total is the suggested inflation, my guess on that.

I think that's a very conservative estimation.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#40

Post by Syonyk » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:47 PM UTC

kingcharles wrote: post #35

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": > As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the d…

This is so 1984. Even if this remotely worked, how would they tell between actual minors and adults roleplaying?

Smash down doors, get embarrassed a few times, pass legislation to ban "roleplaying as a minor in text conversations." Then there's no reason to be embarrassed again!

More practically, I would assume "age of the users of a device" is a well-derived bit of information available to anyone who asks for it with the proper letterhead. Or who just helps themselves to it.