The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by llampx » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:03 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #212

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.

"If even one child is protected, then it was all worth it"

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

#242

Post by preisschild » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:04 PM UTC

perryizgr8 wrote: post #72

throwaway22032 wrote: post #10

Which messenger do we switch to if this goes in? I don't think I'd have an issue convincing people. Is Signal subject to this? Telegram? Do we need something "less mainstream"?

Whatsapp seems to be best, they have end to end encryption for every chat. As long as you don't use an Iphone (where your phone itself can turn against you[1]), you will be fine. [1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_...

> Whatsapp seems to be best

Lol, trusting a company run by Facebook to keep your data secure.

Signal has a good mix of ease of use and privacy. Then there's Matrix, which may not be that easy to use yet.

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

#243

Post by tcptomato » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:04 PM UTC

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…

> like Germany, with all due respect to the Germans who still care about their privacy

What are you talking about? The german speaking world cares (maybe a bit too much) about privacy. This is why google street view sucks in Germany. NOYB - European Center for Digital Rights is headquartered in Vienna.

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

#244

Post by dane-pgp » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:06 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #69

tomekn wrote: post #40

This whole debacle reeks of stupidity. The only thing that will happen is that the criminals they are (allegedly) trying to catch will simply move their comms to different channels. What's stopping a sophisticated crime syndicate form simply creating their own app which will have a small enough footprint such that it will fly under the radar? From the perspective of tech companies, they are being put between a rock a…

VPN + using services in a country that doesn't care is enough. This will be a sales point for VPN providers.

How long until the bureaucrats start saying "These unregulated foreign VPNs are a danger to our private data / economy / national security / children"?

I mean, if a jurisdiction is making people's phones spy on them, then it's not much of a stretch to also make those phones not connect to unapproved VPNs, or even to prevent them installing unapproved apps (despite the recent win of the EU supporting sideloading on mobile OSes).

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

#245

Post by llampx » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:08 PM UTC

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #202

altacc wrote: post #5

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…

Doesn't the system eat itself in the end? False flag 10%, remove those users, falsely flag some more, remove them, and so on until all that's left are people who don't use it or just send pictures of their food?

Where will those flagged users go? The point of FAANG is that they are monopolies.

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

#246

Post by flipbrad » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:08 PM UTC

tcptomato wrote: post #243

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…

> like Germany, with all due respect to the Germans who still care about their privacy What are you talking about? The german speaking world cares (maybe a bit too much) about privacy. This is why google street view sucks in Germany. NOYB - European Center for Digital Rights is headquartered in Vienna.

Vienna is in Austria, not Germany

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

#247

Post by WillPostForFood » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #238

ChrisKnott wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The alarm here is because the EU is proposing mandating it, that’s not happened yet in the US.

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

#248

Post by rjzzleep » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #224

norswap wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Greens in Germany are basically a more serious/realistic Pirate party when the topic is related to the internet. Honestly I vote Greens because of that alone. The fact that the rest of their program is sane is a cherry on top.

Oh my god, not at all. The Greens, are more ideologically driven than any other party and not in a good way(and that ideology does not line up with their campaign promises at all). They have been the single most destructive force in German politics and they have not kept a single campaign promise. This is the supposed "Green" party that campaigned on anti-war and not sending weapons to war zones and closing coal that has been actively lobbying on reopening coal plants and has been the most vocal in its request to send weapons to Ukraine.

If Greens were in favour of anything they campaigned on it would be the perfect political party, but it's not.

It's actually the FDP and AfD that has been most actively against these things. The AfD has been labelled far right and racist conveniently ignoring all the massively racist statement and actions by past CDU/CSU and SPD leadership.

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

#249

Post by jernejzen » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

debesyla wrote: post #236

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.

Right, as the most communication is not used for illegal activities...

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

#250

Post by jand » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #202

altacc wrote: post #5

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…

Doesn't the system eat itself in the end? False flag 10%, remove those users, falsely flag some more, remove them, and so on until all that's left are people who don't use it or just send pictures of their food?

> Doesn't the system eat itself in the end?

Well, it does not as long as the (predictable?) self-censorship sets in. After some time users know not to post pics of vegetable soup if those pics tend to get misclassified.