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

361–370 of 443 posts

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

#361

Post by mrtksn »

pushkine wrote: post #359
mrtksn wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Your argument does not stand with e.g. France. In France, there's an election for each. One for national parliament seats, one for EU parliament seats. In the last decade, the national elections were usually won by center-left (Macron's party) while the EU ones were won by the far-right (Le Pen even has a seat at the EU parliament AFAIK)

What it doesn’t stand exactly? Who is the foreign entity that makes French people do at stuff? Macros? Le Pen? The French voters?

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

#362

Post by thayne »

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…

Leaving the EU won't help. Laws like this impact the global internet, even if you don't live in the EU.

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

#363

Post by pushkine »

mayoi wrote: post #112
bruce343434 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's scary. Where to even begin to convince them?

You cannot. If you need proof to convince you, really look into any revolution that ever happened in human history. It was always the If nothing more, there's a few words for people who are aware of this and actually do something about it, you can read all about them by looking up news articles containing words like "Terrorist", "Public enemy", "Anarchist". In some cases it is thinly veiled in unrelated words like "N…

There's actually a way (though it won't happen).

Setting up a system that invades privacy to catch crimes is bad because once you have that system, all you need is for your government to criminalize good things to reach a dystopia.

In order to avoid that, you'd have to actually run that dystopia, but dramatically and at a small scale.

A great example could be a US state where abortion is illegal and gives actual jail time (I think that's a thing, not sure). You have one of those states put into law that online services must scan for the word "abort" then actually find and put women that had illegal abortions to jail over this.

If you did that, you might get the congress to make digital privacy a protected right at the national level.

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

#364

Post by ekianjo »

t_mann wrote: post #348
ekianjo wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely missing the point. You have a whole lot of more control on people who live next door to you than bureaucrats living thousands of miles away with whom you have absolutely no connection

That's what Brexiteers thought, and look what they got: https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2022/01/uk-paid-724000-cree... https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/06/uk-osb-csam-scanning/

N=1 does not prove anything.

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

#365

Post by pushkine »

mrtksn wrote: post #361
pushkine wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument does not stand with e.g. France. In France, there's an election for each. One for national parliament seats, one for EU parliament seats. In the last decade, the national elections were usually won by center-left (Macron's party) while the EU ones were won by the far-right (Le Pen even has a seat at the EU parliament AFAIK)

What it doesn’t stand exactly? Who is the foreign entity that makes French people do at stuff? Macros? Le Pen? The French voters?

Well in theory I'd agree with you, but in practice your assertion that people would vote the same party nationally and at the EU level is demonstrably false

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

#366

Post by t_mann »

ekianjo wrote: post #364
t_mann wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Brexiteers thought, and look what they got: https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2022/01/uk-paid-724000-cree... https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/06/uk-osb-csam-scanning/

N=1 does not prove anything.

that's two acts of the UK government already. sorry if the data don't match your ideology.

but sure, you can try to brush off every fact-based argument against your idea with 'it hasn't been tried often enough!'

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

#367

Post by coffeeling »

mayoi wrote: post #55
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…

Not just will have action taken against them, they already are: https://archive.ph/W41mf

And in typical Google fashion, you get flatlined and there will be no recourse.

> “You have to talk to Google,” Mr. Hillard said

One of the most impossible feats in the modern world.

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

#368

Post by easytiger »

estebank wrote: post #349
easytiger wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On that point Austrian privacy laws are insane. CCTV is a nightmare to set up there. https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2018/first-austria...

> The infringements refer to the following: the video surveillance system covers public streets as well as parking lots, both part of the public area in front of the entrance of the sports betting café. This is not adequate for the purposes of the processing and is not limited to a necessary extent. There are no logs of video surveillance processing operations. There is no deletion of the personal image data recorded…

You set up a camera to cover your front garden and if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law. That's genuinely absurd. Keep in mind these apply to residential systems also.

The rest of your quote is just as ridiculous.

> There are no logs of video surveillance processing operations.

It's a private system, why should there be.

> There is no deletion of the personal image data recorded by the video surveillance within 72 hours

Genuinely insane

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

#369

Post by mrtksn »

pushkine wrote: post #365
mrtksn wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it doesn’t stand exactly? Who is the foreign entity that makes French people do at stuff? Macros? Le Pen? The French voters?

Well in theory I'd agree with you, but in practice your assertion that people would vote the same party nationally and at the EU level is demonstrably false

I don't get it? Do you claim that one of the elections is rigged? I mean, we have multiple elections for a reason right? People choose to vote for different people on different elections, why would that be problematic and how that would be "fixed" if France left EU?

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

#370

Post by denton-scratch »

KevinOhHeaven wrote: post #94
leodriesch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It specifically prohibits discrimination and welcomes people from other nations, both of which the average German does not actually like That’s an absolutely wild claim and I’d like to know where you got this impression from.

You're perhaps in a sociopolitical bubble if you find that claim wild. Even if you don't personally know anyone with this perspective, I would hope that it's logical, rational, and expected that a significant proportion of an indigenous population targeted for "diversification" would be opposed to the idea. (As a counter-anecdote, I don't personally know a single person in my social circle, in Australia, who is suppo…

I'm curious which population in Australia you are designating as "indigenous". Here in the UK, "indigenous" usually means white. But I think of indigenous Australians as the aboriginals.

So there's history in Australia of white immigrants trying to force aboriginals to "integrate" with whites. I suppose you could call that "targeted diversification". But you make it sound as if your social circle is white people, objecting to "diversity" in the sense of deviation from whiteness.

Would you mind clarifying?

Post reply on HN