Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

lightbluetouchpaper.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 199 posts

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#151

Post by thirdsun »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #90
dijit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so you’re aware. That is actually illegal and those teens sending pictures to other teens can (and are) prosecuted.

This might not be universally true soon. The Netherlands proposed changing the law so teens are okay sexting one another as long as there is mutual consent and it's not to make money[0]. However, it has been stalled for a few years now. (I initially thought it was accepted, but now things are forecasted to be 2024). I also suspect that despite it being illegal, very little action is undertaken while the above require…

Are you talking about the same thing? Mutual, consenting sexting between two teenagers can't possibly be illegal, can it?

I think the grand parent comment is talking about leaking those images to other people without permission. That absolutely has to be illegal.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#152

Post by kingcharles »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #106
kingcharles wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> This is so 1984 1984 has never been about this. It's about the weaknesses of men, that would gladly change a reduction of the chocolate ration into an increase, because it's their job to lie and alter the past, believing they are doing god's work. Also, in 1984 surveillance is secret, not publicly stated in a formal document visible by everybody. Better examples of 1984 in action: the DDR, the NSA.

I think of "1984" as a wider concept than just the conditions laid out in the book. I suspect most people do these days.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#153

Post by koonsolo »

wsc981 wrote: post #149
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just showcases either the ones making the decision are naïve or they have an ulterior motive. They tried to justify it with the following footnote: > For example, Microsoft reports that the accuracy of its grooming detection tool is 88%, meaning that out of 100 conversations flagged as possible criminal solicitation of children, 12 can be excluded upon review and will not be reported to law enforcement; see annex…

The ulterior motive is gaining total control over citizens in EU member states. Which is also why the EU digital ID [0] will soon be introduced and a Euro CBDC will follow in the coming years. It's quite likely the Euro CBDC wallet will be linked (part of) the EU digital ID. I expect at some point the EU digital ID will be required to use when accessing the internet or perhaps when signing up for email, creating a Tw…

As long as we have democracy, we can vote on any party we want, also on the ones that would take our own country out of EU.

So unless you can show me how a move away from democracy can happen, we won't turn into china soon.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#154

Post by hvdijk »

thirdsun wrote: post #151
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might not be universally true soon. The Netherlands proposed changing the law so teens are okay sexting one another as long as there is mutual consent and it's not to make money[0]. However, it has been stalled for a few years now. (I initially thought it was accepted, but now things are forecasted to be 2024). I also suspect that despite it being illegal, very little action is undertaken while the above require…

Are you talking about the same thing? Mutual, consenting sexting between two teenagers can't possibly be illegal, can it? I think the grand parent comment is talking about leaking those images to other people without permission. That absolutely has to be illegal.

> Mutual, consenting sexting between two teenagers can't possibly be illegal, can it?

If those teenagers are minors and are sending sexual pictures of themselves, they are sending sexual pictures of minors. Without an exception in the law to specifically allow this, that can be and is illegal by the laws that criminalise possession or distribution of sexual pictures of minors. There should be an exception in the law for it, but until there is, there isn't.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#155

Post by 2000UltraDeluxe »

wsc981 wrote: post #149
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just showcases either the ones making the decision are naïve or they have an ulterior motive. They tried to justify it with the following footnote: > For example, Microsoft reports that the accuracy of its grooming detection tool is 88%, meaning that out of 100 conversations flagged as possible criminal solicitation of children, 12 can be excluded upon review and will not be reported to law enforcement; see annex…

The ulterior motive is gaining total control over citizens in EU member states. Which is also why the EU digital ID [0] will soon be introduced and a Euro CBDC will follow in the coming years. It's quite likely the Euro CBDC wallet will be linked (part of) the EU digital ID. I expect at some point the EU digital ID will be required to use when accessing the internet or perhaps when signing up for email, creating a Tw…

> I expect at some point the EU digital ID will be required to use when accessing the internet or perhaps when signing up for email, creating a Twitter account and such.

I'm not going into the debate about whether there's an ulterior motive, but current eID solutions in various EU countries are considerably less draconian than what you're describing. The current solutions are going to tie into the new one, after all.

In Finland, as an example, we simply have a chip with a cert/key on ID cards. People without card readers or who don't want to use them are free to use their netbanking logins instead. Being able to use the same solution in other EU countries is of rather limited value to most, but it will ease up paperwork submission when travelling, moving to another member state, and so on.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#156

Post by bryanrasmussen »

np- wrote: post #60
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…

> “becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms learn“ I mean considering Amazon has put in kajillions of dollars on their learning algorithms and yet now in 2022 those algorithms still aren’t even smart enough to figure out trivial stuff, like that I’m probably not gonna buy a second air fryer immediately after buying a first one, and stop advertising them to me. What hope do we have for this new algorit…

>like that I’m probably not gonna buy a second air fryer immediately after buying a first one,

this comes up all the time, but one of the primary indicators that {person} will buy a second {item} of type {X} increases when they have already bought one.

However it does seem to me that I have never done this, even when I am unsatisfied with item, I soldier on for at least a year or two before saying aw screw it, perhaps the machines would be more impressive if they could recognize what people will and will not ever buy a new expensive item immediately again after buying one.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#157

Post by [deleted] »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #79
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…

> You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door. Reminder: Europe is not US. Nobody can smash your door here without proper authorization from a court. And even then, they would knock.

[deleted]

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#158

Post by eschevarria »

RC_ITR wrote: post #145
pitaj wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is full of crises created by government intervention: healthcare, housing, education, etc.

Wait. In what period of human existence did people live longer, have more access to plumbing, or have better literacy? The government caused all those things to go up

Economic growth caused these things to go up; the governments (which also existed in past periods of human existence) caused growth to be much slower than it could have been.

Don’t confuse government causing a increase in government spending on something with causing an increase in the actual supply of that thing. When governments restrict the supply of healthcare and housing (which they do, through professional licensing and zoning regulations), they can spend more on them without increasing supply.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#159

Post by [deleted] »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #79
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…

> You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door. Reminder: Europe is not US. Nobody can smash your door here without proper authorization from a court. And even then, they would knock.

[deleted]

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#160

Post by akomtu »

Such laws is the rich projecting their own thoughts onto the populace. They believe that if the populace is allowed to talk to each other with secrecy, they'd inevitably conspire to take power from the landlords, because those landlords are already conspiring to do exactly this.
Post reply on HN