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

The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

netzpolitik.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 443 posts

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#101

Post by MadSudaca »

sofixa wrote: post #43
Aeolun wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was hard to arrest criminals before digital communication as well, I’m sure we’ll deal.

But each improvement in communications tech (landlines, mobile phones, internet) have enabled new, faster, easier, better communication methods. Medieval criminals would have to physically meet to coordinate a coach robbery; nowadays a terrorist attack can be coordinated fully remotely and anonymously. There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable criminals to coo…

Mass use technologies make the individual more powerful, but also institutions.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#102

Post by pelasaco »

rvz wrote: post #88
pelasaco wrote: post #49

So the TL;DR is the EU Commission wants to implement surveillance in Chat applications to "protect and combat sexual abuse of minors", because nobody is against "combating sexual abuse of minors", right? Probably later they extend that to "protect and combat right wing opinion", because nobody is against "combating the right wing opinion", or even "protect and combat the climate changes", because "Who are against it"…

> EU Commission wants to implement surveillance in Chat applications to "protect and combat sexual abuse of minors", because nobody is against "combating sexual abuse of minors", right? > Sounds like the a lot of "paranoid people" were just right, i guess? Yes they were. The privacy activists are yet to realise that they have lost the battle decades ago. It is that dire that you have companies and governments pretend…

In the flip side of the same coin, almost the same group demand a stronger presence of the police in the internet[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdm8SG8_v0I

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#103

Post by robertlagrant »

gloppers wrote: post #66
dathinab wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't apply at all. If you get accidentally flagged as criminal it can easily destroy your live, without a years log curt case you might never get properly un-flagged even if you are innocent but then the damage is more then just done. Worse after wards the chance to again be attacked when you are innocent aren't that small because even if you get un-flagged the system is most likely remembering that you had bee…

What do you mean "flagged as criminal"? In EU we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. No-one is criminal unless they have been through the process of justice. The scenario you are describing just isn't going to happen. I'm glad that the EU are proposing sensible and proportionate solutions to the thorny issue of paedophiles concealing their depraved activities online. The privacy activists have cried w…

The biggest problem with this is that governments change. Giving them a power forever means every future government will have that power. Current intentions do not matter.

Just think about every evil government in history. It wasn't always that way, and it didn't remain that way. When you know that, how can you say something isn't going to happen?

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#104

Post by kubb »

DangerousPie wrote: post #39

Important to note that this is not 10% of all messages being falsely flagged (= 10% false positive rate), but 10% of flagged messages being false positives (= 90% precision). As someone who works with these types of classification problems in a different context, 90% precision is actually quite good - especially assuming there is some sort of manual review process to take care of the 10%. Whether that makes this whol…

Everybody here seems to be saying "the EU commision doesn't have any idea what they're doing", but it seems barely anyone understands what the 10% is referring to.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#105

Post by pelasaco »

Joker_vD wrote: post #100
pelasaco wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mothers and fathers of the German Grundgesetz (~ constitution) learned that the hard way. > https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_10.html Weren't we Germans calling out Poland, because they decided that national law can take precedence over EU law? So I guess our GG < EU Law.

That's different, you got to understand. /s

The kids must be protected /s

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#106

Post by riedel »

rjzzleep wrote: post #61
ho_schi wrote: post #3

The commission does not seek to break encryption Okay. Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals No. It is there to protect us from perpetrators, criminals and all the people which think they are on the good side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Authoritarian regimes on our planet always thought they were the "good guys". Encryption i…

Quoted post unavailable.

The German constitution has been very much subject to changes to reflect the will of the people (requires a 2/3 majority in parliament). It is true that Germans do not quite are so obsessive about their constitutional rights like US citizens, however, I would say our constitution is a quite solid basis. The general approval ratings for the legal system and the constitution are really not bad [1]

[1] https://www.roland-rechtsschutz.de/media/roland-rechtsschutz...

Edit: fixed autocorrection typo

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#107

Post by mercy_dude »

jeofken wrote: post #80
leodriesch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It specifically prohibits discrimination and welcomes people from other nations, both of which the average German does not actually like That’s an absolutely wild claim and I’d like to know where you got this impression from.

Have you ever seen a poll of a European country where people wanted more immigration (from the 3rd world)?

I am as sympathetic to the Germans who dont want racial diversity and as anti globalist as it gets.

But here is the counter argument. Europe (if you don’t take the Slavs and the albenians into account) has a negative birth rate. There is no way to sustain current standard of living without immigration. The politicians in Bundestag who control the EU knows that. And if there is one thing that they are afraid of is to encounter the shortage of labour and have to increase wages that comes from that. As the crisis from Covid has shown us.

I think the root cause of the decline of the national and cultural identity of Europe is not because of immigration but because of a local population that has mostly no interest in family formation.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#108

Post by Joeri »

pelasaco wrote: post #49

So the TL;DR is the EU Commission wants to implement surveillance in Chat applications to "protect and combat sexual abuse of minors", because nobody is against "combating sexual abuse of minors", right? Probably later they extend that to "protect and combat right wing opinion", because nobody is against "combating the right wing opinion", or even "protect and combat the climate changes", because "Who are against it"…

It’s sort of how blocking of websites was introduced in some of the countries of the EU to combat sexual abuse of minors (CIRCAMP), and then the infrastructure set up to do it was reused to block torrent sites, fake goods sites, phishing sites and a whole host of other web content deemed illegal.

The slippery slope is real, and I have zero doubt this chat control system will be used to detect other illegal activities within the year.

Private correspondence should be private until a judge orders it unsealed in a specific case. Blanket surveillance is worse than the crimes it purports to combat, and there are always better ways to combat those crimes.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#109

Post by mantas »

ginko wrote: post #90
mantas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather a lot of them were young and naive left-wing supporters who looked at USSR through rose glasses. Wouldn't you want to be bureaucrat in late USSR? No threat of purges above you, only endless opportunity to play with your minions as you see fit.

> Rather a lot of them were young and naive left-wing supporters who looked at USSR through rose glasses. The EC is dominated by conservatives.

How many of those who you call conservatives where left-wing when young? Maybe they changed some views, but retained the love of total control :)

I'm not sure about current EC, but the one under Juncker had plenty of far-left-when-young people. Far left as in Marxist and Maoist in 1970s-1980s.

P.S. Fun story from ex-USSR country... At the very end of USSR, it was USSR apparatchiks who were called conservatives :)

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#110

Post by HeckFeck »

sofixa wrote: post #43
Aeolun wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was hard to arrest criminals before digital communication as well, I’m sure we’ll deal.

But each improvement in communications tech (landlines, mobile phones, internet) have enabled new, faster, easier, better communication methods. Medieval criminals would have to physically meet to coordinate a coach robbery; nowadays a terrorist attack can be coordinated fully remotely and anonymously. There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable criminals to coo…

How will you enforce 'limiting encryption'? Will you prosecute everyone who runs a few mathematical calculations on their own computers, presuming guilt?

Do you think that criminals will care that it is 'illegal' to send messages when they're plotting more heinous acts? In such a scenario you'll have to radically enforce what programs may or may not be run on everyone's computer. If you do that, you're worse than the criminals.

Post reply on HN