201–210 of 443 posts
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…
[deleted]
Due to the volume of messages and the endless need to maximise profits, companies will accept 10% flagged content may be false positives but act against all 100% of flagged content, meaning that the default will be innocent people having action taken against them but with no real recourse to clear their name. I also didn't find anything in there about expectations for reducing numbers of false negatives (where automa…
So they're fine to read 10% of all messages? Probably more, because of context? Besides this obviously being a massive DDOS on whatever dystopian spy center of sanitary thoughts they want to build, I wonder how the big EU honchos get their free pass on that? Or didn't they simply not consider that they're going to get monitored as well?
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…
Why do you think this? What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children?
Helen Lovejoy wasn't lying, she was sincerely (but irrationally) concerned for the children.
HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments (that they are deliberately secretly plotting to be despotic, and using the cover of trying to protect children) with no actual evidence, just a lot of winks and eyebrow wiggling. Complete abdication of rational thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Without encryption, criminals will have even easier time stealing personal information and breaking into accounts. Limiting encryption use may hurt certain types of criminals, but also helps another types of criminals, mainly cyber criminals.
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…
I agree, child protection isn’t what’s driving this. It’s the deflection
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kinda get it, but it doesn't make sense to blame it on the EU when you own government would likely impose the exact same (if not harsher) rules. Thats at least what I tell myself. I'm under no illusion that my own government is any better.
See: The UK, doggedly pursuing similar legislation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> nowadays a terrorist attack can be coordinated fully remotely and anonymously. Actually, Osama Bin Laden relied on trusted couriers; not phones, networks or encryption.
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…