Always the same argument to open doors for mass surveillance.
European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
41–50 of 199 posts
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#42Now 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.
When you're a hammer (libertarian) everything looks like a nail (bad faith crisis management to justify to government overreach).
The problem is the world is full of crises that need government support, the question is which do we want addressed?
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#43>Finally, the proposed Regulation contains safeguards to ensure that technologies used for the purposes of detection, reporting and removal of online child sexual abuse to comply with a detection order are the least privacy-intrusive and are in accordance with the state of the art in the industry; they perform any necessary review on an anonymous basis and only take steps to identify any user in case potential online child sexual abuse is detected. It guarantees the fundamental right to an effective remedy in all phases of the relevant activities, from detection to removal, and it limits the preservation of removed material and related data to what is strictly necessary for certain specified purposes. Thereby, the proposed Regulation limits the interference with the right to personal data protection of users and their right to confidentiality of communications, to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of ensuring the achievement of its objectives, that is, laying down harmonised rules for effectively preventing and combating online child sexual abuse in the internal market. (from the proposal)
It doesn't seem to me the document goes very much into detail on the effects this will cause for privacy rights, both with its application and indirectly, and how it should be implemented, despite briefly bringing up encryption concerns from the opposition. I can't see this anonymized data collection work as claimed due to the sensitive nature of the subject at hand (private conversations), and I wonder about the enforcement rights it'd allow (imposition of "remedies", fines, periodic penalty payments, and "power to adopt interim measures to avoid the risk of serious harm") and the importance of rapid content deletion for small-to-medium online platforms and personal sites as it has been hinted in the past. I really do not trust companies to have a privacy minded approach nor I consider my government capable of doing so as it does not benefit it in practice. (the document does mention strong support from "law enforcement authorities")
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#44"protecting kids" is a "way of the devil" done by weak bureaucrats towards creating tools for totalitarian control, as government can and should not be trusted with anything proactive or en mass!
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#45Nothing new. People in general prefer giving up their privacy for 'safety'.
If that was the tradeoff, it would be worth it. This is giving up their privacy for nothing in return, or worse, negative restrictions on their political freedom and freedom of expression.
Speak for yourself. Privacy and freedom are more important than security to many, many people.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My initial thought was to give adults an adult service, but that also means adults need to provide information (which a lot of adults wouldn't be okay with) so they can filter the kids out. Then you'd still have to run the proposal on every service kids and adults have access to. Then on top of that, you still need to filter out cases where its just minors, but at the same time you can't filter all of them because it might be a case of sexual violence between minors.
It's a headache no matter how I look at it.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#47Earlier 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.
No reason an XMPP client wouldn't be forced to include this as well. Reminder that iMessage and Signal are encrypted communications but are surely a target of this sort of lawmaking.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#48I'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!!!"
Not the same metric, but related:
> Approximately 200,000 people in 38 states are currently on the sex offender registry for crimes they committed as children. Some were put on the registry when they were as young as eight years old.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
Device-local, yes, but I thought it was only for apps under Apple's direct purview, ie, iMessage.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there's nothing properly developed, that's why we are still here. The basic building blocks are all there, cryptography for privacy and identity. p2p networks for data transfer have worked in the piracy world for many years too. What is missing is putting it all together and be able to replicate the network effects you get from centralized media, like if you are able to reach one person, be able to reach in a s…
Matrix, in "few users per server, federated" sort of deployments, seems it would accomplish a lot of this.
Isn't the idea to ban client hardware capable of running such software?