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

231–240 of 443 posts

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

#231

Post by zmgsabst »

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…

This sounds more like reviving the Stasi than helping children.

I’m not going to debate a disingenuous excuse from the people who just locked us in our homes for a year seeking yet more power and control.

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

#232

Post by pyb »

mayoi wrote: post #42
seper8 wrote: post #4

Disgusting. Wonder if people working on these commissions ever consider the thought that they are "the baddies". In any case, the gestapo would have _loved_ this service.

I know a few, and these people genuinely and completely unironically without a doubt in their mind consider that they're doing the right thing for the greater good of humanity.

There are too many "useful idiots" in government circles. Hell is paved with good intentions.

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

#233

Post by imtringued »

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…

This technology is ineffective at saving children and highly effective at ruining more lives than it could theoretically save even with perfect conditions.

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

#234

Post by vaylian »

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?

Because Zensursula has tried to pull off this trick before. Her party is very eager to introduce more surveillance and they like to brush off technical and ethical concerns.

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

#235

Post by ben_w »

ajvs wrote: post #196
PurpleRamen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things are regulated, specifically to reduce chances for abusing them, but also to help in fetching criminals. Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys". Whether the balance is good or bad, we will see. But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

> what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys". Which can only be done through spyware installed universally if encryption isn't going to be broken. Because that certainly isn't ripe for abuse..

Yes, it will be abused. As will the surveillance tech that I prefer as an alternative to crypto backdoors, on the grounds that (1) the crypto is far too important to permit backdoors, and (2) it won't be possible to stop boring everyday criminals from getting surveillance tech, let alone governments, and (3) crypto is knowledge that's already out of the bag, so sufficiently motivated bad guys can still have it without backdoors even if everyone else's crypto is broken.

That's why I can only see a plausible outcome involving radical reductions in penalties for basically everything.

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

#236

Post by debesyla »

jernejzen wrote: post #229

It kinda gets me into the stance: every member of EU parliament and EU commission should make their bank accounts fully transparent so populi can check whether they are committing some act of corruption.

I understand the sentiment, but it's unlikely that any/most corruption happen trough bank accounts.

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

#237

Post by mrtksn »

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.

EU is not a foreign entity, it's made up of the governments of the members(some elected some appointed by the locally elected). So when you leave EU, you end up to live with the entity that tried to introduce it in first place.

If they didn't wanted that, they could have blocked it. However, leaving EU might actually help the government to have a better localised excuse. For example, maybe child abuse is not a big thing in your country but immigration is a hot topic? Then you can have "break the encryption to stop the human smugglers" campaign.

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

#238

Post by Spivak »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #206
kurupt213 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, child protection isn’t what’s driving this. It’s the deflection

What evidence do you have to support this? Everything I can see suggests that they sincerely believe this will help protect children.

Especially because in the US we already do this and the sky hasn’t fallen. Storage providers and hosting services already scan for it and popular chat apps block sending matching images client side.

Like everyone saying this is the spiral to dystopia has to contend with the fact that we’re already apparently living in one.

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

#239

Post by imtringued »

thr923400230 wrote: post #168
nullc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's easy to achieve high precision when you just define a hit very broadly. No, it's easy to achieve high recall when you define a hit very broadly. Precision will come down starkly.

Code is law the algorithm is always right 90% of the time.

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

#240

Post by aaaaaaaaaaab »

paganel wrote: post #222

As an EU citizen I didn't know exactly what that Chat Control thing was, so I web searched it: > The EU wants to oblige providers to search all private chats, messages, and emails automatically for suspicious content – generally and indiscriminately. The stated aim: To prosecute child pornography. [1] Yeah, that will go down well, a central government checking our private conversations for "suspicious content". Of co…

>F. that, the only viable solution I see for my country is an exit from the EU

I don't think non-EU Eastern European countries have such a stellar track record with respect to privacy...

Post reply on HN