The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies • Hacker News Board

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#281

Post by ryanwaggoner » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 1:44 PM UTC

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #239

revelio wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, that's not how spam filters actually work in the real world. They hardly care about message contents. They care about how many spam reports users file and those are weighed against non-reported messages for any stable identity like phone number, sending domain name, etc. Spam meanwhile is defined as messages users don't want. If users can't tell the difference between spam and non-spam then, by definition, the…

Oh sorry, I missed a part, and you are misunderstanding me. I understand you know how real world spam filters work, but this is a different use case. I'm not trying to generate spam, I'm talking about an IM app, where you have your contacts, and you can talk with each other and only see the legit messages. I can elaborate, but please continue in a non-adversarial way if possible.

But the IM client will need a way to differentiate the noise messages from the ones intended for the human recipient. Whatever denotes a message as being intended for humans can also be used by the surveillance apparatus to ignore the noise messages.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#282

Post by CuriouslyC » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 1:45 PM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

This would be delightful. Being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#283

Post by JacobThreeThree » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 1:45 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #280

blitzar wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your two statements seem to be a contradiction - decision meetings should be public, but the meeting where you are getting a blowie from your assistant on the sofa in your office should be private?

What does the second act have to do with corruption or information that is useful for the public?

When a government official doesn't abide by his own lockdown rules, that's corruption.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#284

Post by F2hP18Foam » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC

shanebellone wrote: post #171

dover wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That I'm commenting on a new account doesn't invalidate anything I've said. This is a weak and irrelevant criticism.

Your commentary is representative of low intelligence. Stupid is a qualifying factor for disregard.

Statement A is wrong because the person who said it is stupid. Why are they stupid? Because they said statement A.

Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#285

Post by BurningFrog » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #138

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm totally fine with raising their paychecks by a factor of 10 for their loss of privacy if we implement this... the amount of money we'd save elswhere dur to less corruption would be a few orders of magnitude higher.

We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...

If you mean Trump, a lot of people think the results were great.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#286

Post by dover » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #273

dover wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about men in women's prisons. Any man can call himself a woman, and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed. Effectively making women's prisons mixed-sex environments. Sex-segregation of prisons (and other spaces where women are vulnerable) exists for good reason: the safety and dignity of women. The need for this has been well-documented since the 19th century, when refor…

> and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed. This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way. > it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women. Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the ris…

> This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way.

California, Washington, Ireland, for example. All places where prisoners are being incarcerated based on their claims of "gender identity" rather than sex.

> Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstrated the risk that trans women pose to the women around them.

Sorry, but this isn't how this works. It is already well established that men present significant risk to women, particularly in spaces where women are vulnerable. If you want to claim that a subset of these men - that is, any man who calls himself a woman - poses a significantly lower risk to women, then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it.

> I'll provide one: male-on-female prison violence is a well-established phenomenon. What do you think is going to happen when you put a handful of women in an all-male prison?

I entirely agree that women who call themselves men must not be placed in men's prisons, just as men who call themselves women must not be incarcerated with women. As I argued above, this is the whole point of sex-segregated prisons, safeguarding women from male sexual abuse and violence.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#287

Post by javajosh » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

You say this in jest, but it's a good idea. The more power you have, the less privacy you should have. This would be an appealing catch-up mechanic in society.

I would vote yes.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#288

Post by twinge » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

This could be labeled "sousveillance", watchful vigilance from underneath:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#289

Post by Aunche » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #138

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm totally fine with raising their paychecks by a factor of 10 for their loss of privacy if we implement this... the amount of money we'd save elswhere dur to less corruption would be a few orders of magnitude higher.

We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...

Much earlier than Trump, politicians discovered that they could further advance their own interests by virtue signaling during Congressional sessions instead of actually make progress on legislation. Now, all meaningful negotiation happens behinds closed doors. If that also gets broadcast, then I'd be surprised if they get anything done at all.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#290

Post by lib-dev » Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #285

notahacker wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...

If you mean Trump, a lot of people think the results were great.

A lot of people are brainwashed.