161–170 of 443 posts
I have such a strong reaction to news like this, it's hard for me to not think that it's appropriate for every member state to consider leaving the EU now. They've succeeded in shifting me to a very anti-EU stance in one proposed measure - brilliant! It wouldn't surprise me if the leaders of most states are quite keen on such surveillance though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is wild because the german constitution does not encourage immigration. It contains paragraphs that prohibit discrimination. It guarantees asylum for people that are prosecuted in their home country for political views [1]. There's also a paragraph that widens the definition of "German citizen" in the GG to those that were german citizens in 1937 or who lost their german citizenship due to the nazis. After…
You're being disingenuous. And given on your follow-up you're actually misrepresenting what I say, which is wilfully malicious behaviour in a discussion. German politicians have repeatedly called for a reform of article 16a of the GG. The paragraph is about the right of asylum. And yes, during what they call the "migration crisis" article 16a clearly supported the case for mass migration to Germany. https://www.merku…
How big is the risk of a child being groomed through these electronic means? Is it comparable to being struck by lightning? What is worse weighted by probability: being sexually assaulted as a child or being suspected and having your life turned upside down for years by these algorithms. We already see these things happen with relatively minor things like having your google account closed by an algorithmic mishap.
How was this 10% number of false positives determined? Is this only an expectation of false positives or an actual statistic. What does 10% mean in the context of mass surveillance?
It might well be that millions of children are groomed and assaulted every year through chats. I don't have the data so i cannot say. I was under the impression that most sexual assault cases happen in the family and not by strangers.
What's worrying though is that these decisions are taken behind closed doors without any oversight, on the hope that they might save a child and possibly putting our lives in the hands of algorithmic justice.
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…
> > Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals > No. Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. I don't know the best way to…
So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those...
Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if somebody stubs you with one.
And what about clothes? Naked criminals would be much less effective...
The thing is anything can assist criminals. Why single out encryption (besides the government wanting to snoop at will)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The mothers and fathers of the German Grundgesetz (~ constitution) learned that the hard way repetita iuvant: secrecy is not privacy. encryption makes conversation private but not totally secret, WhatsApp knows if I write to the person named "dentist" on my address book only when the phone number connected to "wife" is out of town. Or if I dial the number of a tow truck service at 4 am after my phone has been for h…
> It's not like the CIA that breaks your SSL certs and wiretaps on your communications without asking anyone if they can or cannot. It's absolutely hilarious that you believe America is the only country that does this.
where did I say it's the only one?
But would you deny that its the one spending more on it and with the most advanced technologies to do it?
I don't know many other "free" countries that spied the political leaders of allied Nations.
With 90% accuracy, and assuming the incidence of true grooming in random conversation is way smaller, they are setting themselves up for the base rate fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
In the linked Netzpolitik article (in German) it's pretty clear that the 90% refers to Precision (i.e. 90% of flagged instances are True Positives), not accuracy. Still, the article (and probably the primary documents as well) do a horrible job of differentiating such concepts. [For clarification: Don't understand as my post as an argument for Chat Control, please :)]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals > No. Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. I don't know the best way to…
> Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those... Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if som…
Indeed, food is also helpful to criminals, without proper nourishment they would be less capable
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…
It's easy to achieve high precision when you just define a hit very broadly. See also the political flap about teachers factually describing the existence of alternative sexuality as 'grooming'. If you want to see the lie behind any of these child protection surveillance initiatives when they talk about things like 90% precision or millions of hits per year ask them how many of those detection of vile child predators…
No, it's easy to achieve high recall when you define a hit very broadly. Precision will come down starkly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals > No. Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. I don't know the best way to…
> Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those... Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if som…
Bad example. We definitely do ban carrying large knives (blade length >X), butterfly knives etc. around with you. Relatedly Germany even punishes carrying around lockpicking tools (unless that is your job) -- just carrying them.
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…