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

211–220 of 443 posts

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

#211

Post by hn_throwaway_69 »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #191
hn_throwaway_69 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing - both of those issues you've identified are broader societal issues that concern everyone, not just you. (2) in particular is suggesting, effectively, that you should be allowed to circumvent a law you disagree with. In other words, you should be allowed to communicate unlawfully if you don't agree the communication should be unlawful. That's just not how it works. As a society, your view is one of…

Whatever society decides is not necessarily good; it's your moral right to break laws you thjnk are sufficiently unjust. When germany goes fascist again, you can bet I'll be using encryption. If you want people to respect the rule of law, you have to offer them a compromise.

You can break whatever law you choose, but there may be consequences for doing so. It's no answer to breaking a law to say that you don't agree with the law.

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

#212

Post by wyager »

chucklenorris wrote: post #163

I think there are some important questions that need to be answered before such a dangerous decision should be made. 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…

99% of people are simply not capable of making or even comprehending the relevance of probability-weighted utility calculations. This has predictable and deeply unfortunate effects on the political process.

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

#213

Post by wyager »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #113
hnhg wrote: post #41

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.

The issue is that they might end up breaking encryption anyways as exited states.

Better to have a patchwork of occasional shitty laws from weak, small states than consistent and unified shitty laws with widespread enforcement.

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

#214

Post by PeterStuer »

ho_schi wrote: post #27
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…

Before I miss it. Here are the "good guys" at work (paywall): https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil... We can see "AI" at work. And even if a human checks it you are doomed, because you don't fit in the business plan. Therefore never upload private data on a strangers computer. The cloud is by definition a strangers computer! It is nice that you can find your lost phone with their website but y…

"'The situation changes somewhat if you pay with money for service instead with data.'"

In most cases that means you pay and they still monetize your data to the fullest

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

#215

Post by wyager »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #204
vaylian wrote: post #145

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…

> "Saying that this is about child protection is a blatant lie." 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 tryi…

> Why do you think this?

Anyone with a bayesian world-model thinks this. It's one of the most tired and obvious lies of all time, to the point that "think of the children" is a well-known trope.

> What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children?

Their behavior would have to actually reflect such a stance.

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

#216

Post by norswap »

Tainnor wrote: post #199

The only "good" thing is that the current German government is very skeptical about this and two of the current governing parties (the Greens and the liberal party) have also long been opposed to more surveillance. This was different with the previous government where the "law & order" mentality was much more entrenched, and which did nothing to prevent e.g. upload filters (despite promising to do so). So I try to ma…

Are you sure they're ideologically against it, or where they against it because they were in the opposition and it was convenient for them to be?

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

#217

Post by handelaar »

hnhg wrote: post #41

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.

It is EU law that will prevent the Commission from actually getting anywhere near implementing a project this stupid and insanely-illegal.

Over in the UK, the EU can't stop the new Kakistocracy from actually doing it. I know where I'd rather live.

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

#218

Post by webmobdev »

Aeolun wrote: post #30
capableweb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm for E2E encryption wherever it's applicable, and for individuals having the ability to be fully anonymous online, but it's not useful to claim it doesn't have drawbacks as well. Yes, it's true that it might it harder to arrest criminals because of encryption, but the alternative that nothing can be 100% private is so much worse.

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

Yeah, and this worry about criminals is misdirected. The only legitimate worry should be about national security - the danger from terrorists, especially foreign actors. And the answer to that is simple - the state should have complete control over the communication infrastructure. But this is impossible with the internet. So the real solution, and an unpopular one, is to introduce legislation banning "free" communication and treating internet messaging companies like WhatsApp, Zoom, Skype etc. like telecommunication companies and applying the same legislation to them.

The only bloody reason people use WhatsApp and Skype etc. is because it is "free". Take away that aspect, apply the same laws and rules applicable to telecom companies to them, and we will find they will lose their appeal very fast. (I do believe offering a product for "free" should be considered an anti-competitive behaviour as it hugely increases the barrier to entry in any field. Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc. continue to have a monopoly on the internet solely because competing with them for "free" is a losing proposition for anyone - in fact, if they were not backed by CIA and NSA funds and programs like PRISM, even they would have collapsed a long time ago).

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

#219

Post by [deleted] »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #150
HeckFeck wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wo…

[deleted]

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

#220

Post by pelasaco »

rndgermandude wrote: post #151
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.

No

Yes https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-germany-say-pola...
Post reply on HN