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

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#161

Post by dijit » Thu, May 12, 2022, 6:47 AM UTC

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?

It absolutely is.

It’s still consumption of illicit material depicting someone under the age of 18, which is a law being broken, even if it's by someone younger than 18.

Ask me how I know.

I'll give you a hint: I have an absolutely awful sounding thing on my criminal record from when I was 15.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#162

Post by hoseja » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:00 AM UTC

boredumb wrote: post #38

unethical_ban wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

COVID was unknown. It's perfectly reasonable to shut things down when there's an unknown disease going around, even if it turns out not quite apocalyptic.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#163

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:15 AM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #133

RC_ITR wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What about in the case where many of these issues are almost always nails regardless of how convoluted or complicated they may look others? Andrew Cuomo falsified and hid information regarding his mismanagement of elder care facilities. Hong Kong has been placed under de facto martial law by the CCP with the goal of crushing dissent. Various governments and government organizations have spied on their citizens throug…

Hong Kong fighting against cccp takeover has nothing to do with covid. You can't spell Barack. And you misinterpret what he said. I've likely read Orwell and Huxley more than most. Again, you only seem to see bad faith.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#164

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:16 AM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #77

RC_ITR wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

If love to meet you. You seem to really believe what you say, yet it is so absurd.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#165

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:17 AM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #131

unethical_ban wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't speak for Europe, but in the United States one can't unless he is unaware of his being a hypocrite.

What? Defend this statement.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#166

Post by ldng » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:31 AM UTC

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…

I've been told (I don't know if it's) that showing you an ad for something you just bought reinforce your satisfaction and are thus significantly less likely to return the product.

I really wonder if it's true.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#167

Post by raxxorraxor » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:33 AM UTC

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #68

np- wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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…

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 little fact that Microsoft then has the possibility to read random interactions that have been flagged by its own blackbox should really induce doubt here.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#168

Post by raxxorraxor » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:38 AM UTC

2000UltraDeluxe wrote: post #155

wsc981 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Problem is that if an ID system is ever established and becomes ubiquitous, a quick change in legislature can force online services to leverage the ID. Protection of intellectual property, CSAM, a pretext is easily found. Happens faster than you can blink and than the free internet in Europe would quickly die. The best protection against that is to have alternative ID systems or just anonymous usage if no transactions are involved.

And a lot of services would be fine to use a state ID because they can tie their advertising to a real and unique person. To secure against that the smart move is to reject the little convenience here for longtime benefit.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#169

Post by raxxorraxor » Thu, May 12, 2022, 7:40 AM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #153

wsc981 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Democracy didn't really protect use from intelligence agencies sniffing communication data, so I don't see how it would protect anything. Not an intrinsic fault of democracy since the EU still has deficits here.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#170

Post by raxxorraxor » Thu, May 12, 2022, 8:08 AM UTC

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.

> Nobody can smash your door here without proper authorization from a court.

This is an urban legend. My country Germany often prides itself to have protections here but that is a lie. In reality courts are overwhelmed so they basically sign any request the executive brings in. We had that for a twitter comment that hit the news a few month ago, but we also have that for people buying flowerpots online because they were suspected to grow weed. No joke. Surveillance is again very strong here.

It is true though that they mostly knock at least or they wait until you are not at home. But the barriers are very low for a supposedly enlightened society. And recourse against illegal searches are very limited as well and some end with quite some property damage.

Some geniuses thought it would be a prudent idea to evaluate the performance of police by the cases they close. So they really have to search for crime in any niche. State incompetence of the highest level in the highest positions and people have very little protection against that and if at some point there isn't enough crime...

The tend not to even say sorry if their search was wrong. Neither the executive nor any other government entity. The police is the least guilty although the system relies that they only request reasonable searches.