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

141–150 of 443 posts

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

#141

Post by mayoi »

mercy_dude wrote: post #107
jeofken wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#142

Post by rjzzleep »

Xylakant wrote: post #95
rjzzleep wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> All the recent war involvements of Germany are inherently against the German constitution You'll have to back that up a little. Which wars? Which involvement is considered unconstitutional? Because a lot of those have been tested in the constitutional court and found to be covered by the constitution - see the courts judgement from 1994 https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv090286.html# "BVerfGE 90, 286 (286)1. Die Erm…

I mean you can justify all you want, and there is various critiques on how the Verfassungsgericht has become an instrument of politics where the top assignments are now based on party affiliation. But regardless of what you think of it's decision and what you think of it's decisions, Artikel 2 of the GG says this:

> Art 2 > (1) Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit, soweit er nicht die Rechte anderer verletzt und nicht gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder das Sittengesetz verstößt. > (2) Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit. Die Freiheit der Person ist unverletzlich. In diese Rechte darf nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes eingegriffen werden.

"(2) Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. The freedom of a person is inviolable. These rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law."

You kill someone, you bomb someone, you support someone that is bombing someone -> you are inherently violating article 2 of the GG no matter how the VerfG decides to justify the Kosovo or Iraq war or justify it as a act of selfdefense.

EDIT: yes, on the basis of a law - that I retroactively rewrote in order to justify a "defensive war" that is on the other side of the planet. Let's not kid ourselves here. The German and US MIC has done a fantastic job in white washing the violation of something that has been proven to be a false pretence by now. Even assuming that the WMD defence held up in court AT THE TIME(which is a joke TBH, since there was no evidence available), we all know that all the officials admitted that it was a lie by now.

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

#143

Post by ptr »

eptcyka wrote: post #116
jeofken wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A significant portion of Swedes legitimately want more immigration.

What do you mean by “want more immigration”? More tax payers? More potential customers? More cheap workforce? Immigration as a help for unfortunate people in other countries?

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

#144

Post by mayoi »

antihero wrote: post #124
KevinOhHeaven wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're perhaps in a sociopolitical bubble if you find that claim wild. Even if you don't personally know anyone with this perspective, I would hope that it's logical, rational, and expected that a significant proportion of an indigenous population targeted for "diversification" would be opposed to the idea. (As a counter-anecdote, I don't personally know a single person in my social circle, in Australia, who is suppo…

Maybe you just hang around with racists?

No post body was provided.

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

#145

Post by vaylian »

It doesn't matter how low the error rate is. The fact that the European Commission wants to have a third (robotic) participant listening in on every digital communication is absolutely ridiculous.

Saying that this is about child protection is a blatant lie. This serves only as a stepping stone to introduce other screening criteria later. And with opaque ML models it will be very tedious to determine what the model is supposed to find.

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

#146

Post by eptcyka »

ptr wrote: post #143
eptcyka wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant portion of Swedes legitimately want more immigration.

What do you mean by “want more immigration”? More tax payers? More potential customers? More cheap workforce? Immigration as a help for unfortunate people in other countries?

From the very small sample I've had, a majority would want immigration as a help for unfortunate people in other countries.

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

#147

Post by perryizgr8 »

ginko wrote: post #98
perryizgr8 wrote: post #53

How ironic. On one hand EU forces legitimate businesses to spend billions of dollars to satisfy GDPR in the name of privacy. On the other, they are planning to stream teenagers' private pics directly to designated "investigators".

It's almost as if the EU were composed of many different people with different viewpoints.

I get that, but it is still ironic. And it makes me sad looking at the utter wastage of money and human effort.

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

#148

Post by mnw21cam »

GuB-42 wrote: post #68

Actually 10% false positive rate is not that bad if the system really has a 90% chance of detecting child abuse. Keep in mind that it only raises a flag, it doesn't automatically results in a false conviction. I don't have the numbers but I think that during an investigation, way more than 10% of suspects did nothing wrong. In fact, some people estimate that 10% of convictions are wrong (though I think that's an over…

Make sure you get the correct meaning of the 90%. This article isn't talking about a 10% false positive rate, which would mean that 10% of OK pictures are falsely flagged as bad. That would be awful. The article is actually talking about 90% precision, AKA 10% false discovery rate, which means that 10% of the pictures flagged as bad are actually OK. That's a fairly good precision - however it is only half the picture, as the false positive rate definitely needs to be specified (and be very low).

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

#149

Post by mayoi »

gloppers wrote: post #46
mayoi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

No need to be so rude. From the law enforcement side, that is the system working as it should - the police investigated and cleared him of any wrongdoing. That Google can close someone's account for any reason and without any recourse is a wider issue, and one separate to this EU regulation.

Law enforcement acknowledging the fact that he did nothing wrong won't fix the fact that he lost a lot of time and probably braincells because of the stress induced by something completely retarded that should've never happened.

Now go ahead and send a SWAT team to my house, because I have a real photo of a naked baby in an album in one of my coffers, lets ignore for a moment that it was taken by my mother when I was a baby, and I guess by your standards, it's called "CSAM" or something equally retarded.

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

#150

Post by peoplefromibiza »

HeckFeck wrote: post #125
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> there is no constant surveillance in Europe CCTV? I would also be extremely surprised to learn that European agencies don't have access to the Five Eyes program, or even their own analogue. Face it, every state wants a hand in the big data gravy train. Especially organisations like the EU that believe their regulation, centralisation and bureaucracy is an unquestionable good.

they can't use it unless authorized and no, there is no single evidence that EU is engaged in massive surveillance on their citizens.

Also because, for those who don't know, EU cannot do it by itself.

It depends from the legislation of every single member.

So I'm sure in Poland and Hungary they are trying to do it against political opposition, but I'm also sure that in my Country it is not happening (I know people working for that department, it's mostly because incompetence and laser focus on other threats like terrorism and organized crime, which we are pretty good at preventing)

And most of all as European I support the idea that EU should protect interests of EU, where 450 million people live.

It's bad enough we have to witness and pay the consequences of a war at our borders because Americans did nothing to prevent it, that we have to allow them to have their military bases on our soil, that they are now sending more troops to said bases, let's at least have our own regulations created by, let's remember this fact too, elected representatives of the European population.

Post reply on HN