European Commission prefers breaking privacy to "protecting kids"
Fixed the title.
European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
171–180 of 199 posts
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#172Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean more generating like artificial humans: https://boredhumans.com/faces.php Some some tech like the above. Maybe the term deep-fake is not the correct one
Exactly. You need a lot of data to train a GAN.
Hmm good point. But what about honey-pots? That seems like a very easy thing to do as they already have the dataset, no?
Plus you only need images of children in general - not even CP to create those 3 models and then it's just Unreal engine let's say.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 transaction…
Pretty much whole of EU already has some form of government ID (not sure if there are any exceptions, but if they are they are not many).
People are used to them, so it's really just a matter of time, before it goes digital.
I don't disagree with your observations, I just think its a forgone conclusion at this point.
That said I think the value lies in creating new non centralized (and less popular) solutions. They will probably never have mass appeal, but at least they will be there for people who want/need them.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
With XMPP though you can use a smaller FOSS client on a desktop PC. iMessage and Signal force you to use a recent closed source client on a phone.
If the person you are chatting with doesn't follow suit, you'll still be analyzed, just on their end instead.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#176Earlier 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…
> It just showcases either the ones making the decision are naïve or they have an ulterior motive
Its the same AI coolaid silicon valley has been peddling for years and using it to justify various crap. So you should not be surprised
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally off topic ... I am to a certain degree curious what video hides behind this link. Maybe I'd even want to watch it. But at the same time I am too turned off by the fact that I'd actually need to visit the link just to learn the title of this video to actually do the click. Ever felt the same?
The title is: The Simpsons - Helen Lovejoy - Think of the children
Awesome .. I'll totally click on that link now.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
"Big Brother" was a pretty big part of 1984, and I definitely have gotten "Big Brother" vibes from the EU these last few years, under the pretense of "we know better than you and we want to protect you". Having a good will doesn't make it okay for the EU to become a helicopter parent, nor do I like the prospect of that good will evaporating and them having access to what is effectively more and more surveillance.
The point is that NSA in much more big brother and has been around for a decade
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#179This is the true face of the EU. Anyone who opposes it will be branded as a child molester. Even if the parliament rejects this proposal, the next power hungry authoritarian can simply try again, until eventually one parliament will pass it. You can be either in support of total surveillance, or in support of abolishing the EU. There is no middle ground.
>You can be either in support of total surveillance, or in support of abolishing the EU.
Most obvious false dichotomy I've seen. Try harder.
Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
#180Earlier 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?
Yes, it can and it is. Though most reasonable places would probably not enforce it harshly.