Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#161

Post by ribosometronome »

alethic wrote: post #152
nicce wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner? This is exactly what has been proposed. E.g. WhatsApp has a piece of code that scans images and texts before sending. After that, they are "encrypted".

This is of course a massive privacy violation, since the code that scans for CSAM can be switched out to scan for anything else at any time. (It's even easier to do now than when Apple first proposed it, as language models since have gotten good at reading images.)

Apple was already doing image recognition on device for photo searchability when they proposed that solution.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#162

Post by ribosometronome »

earth-tattoo wrote: post #153
inigyou wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.

[flagged]

Your quote is very different from the situation you describe. Revoking citizenship is different than no pathway to citizenship. A pathway to citizenship is not open doors.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#163

Post by Barrin92 »

petcat wrote: post #36
Zufriedenheit wrote: post #28

They claim to protect consumers and privacy and then push this creepy surveillance state.

At this point I think it's obvious that EU is in turmoil. They're struggling to come to grips with the idea of a Russian invasion on their eastern borders, and simultaneously USA pivoting to Asia and not willing to front their defense after 40+ years of imploring them to do so themselves. They've outsourced nearly every critical component of a large sustainable society to the rest of the world: Russia, USA, China, In…

>They've outsourced nearly every critical component of a large sustainable society to the rest of the world: Russia, USA, China, India.

The EU is about twice as industrialized as the US is, In the town of Unterlüß of four thousand people Germany produces about half as many artillery shells as the entire US does (and nationally alone now produces more) and Ukraine and Europe have, for the last 18 months, defended Ukraine without about any support from anyone else. Where do you get your information about Europe, on twitter?

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#164

Post by neonstatic »

wredcoll wrote: post #147
pembrook wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowin…

Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions. Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power. In general I would agree that say, walmart, is mostly interested in…

> if I dislike what e.g. the department of labour is doing with information it's collecting, I can vote for various representatives up and down the hierarchy of power

How has that been going? Did you manage to elect someone, who made a positive change? Let's be charitable - you can pick an example from your life that goes back up to 50 years.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#165

Post by ribosometronome »

pembrook wrote: post #150
protocolture wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. I keep trying to explain to people that any data companies harvest, for whatever purpose, can then be accessed by the government, and that trying to draw distinctions in what is a big massive ouroboros is irrelevant. Even if y…

The root issue is still government having absurdly asymmetric power over you. If the government weren't legally able to use the toilet bowl cleaner companies data against you, it wouldn't matter. The problem is us giving governments the right to use this data against us (passports to access the internet, messages being under constant surveillance, etc.) In Europe we're happily handing over our rights every day so tha…

The law can change. Which is why it's better if that data was not collected in the first place.

Plenty of companies collecting data are operated by people who want to control what you think, feel, and do both for profit and based on their owners personal beliefs.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#166

Post by EarlKing »

mikaeluman wrote: post #53

Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.

> stopping child sexual abuse

> suddenly touches everyone

..............I see what you did there.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#168

Post by jolmg »

pembrook wrote: post #115
pqtyw wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?

I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowin…

> I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

A reminder that governments can buy from private companies. A company like Palantir can buy data from private companies then incorporate it into the software it sells to governments.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#169

Post by fc417fc802 »

ablob wrote: post #159
m12k wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intuition I've built is that you can't talk about a false positive rate being high or low on its own - it's always relative to the actual occurrence rate of positives in the tested population. E.g. if there's a 1 in 10000 risk of a false positive, but real positives also are only 1 out of 10000 tested cases, then a positive case will have a 50/50 chance of being a false positive (because for every 10000 tests, yo…

The mentioned accuracy in the comment you are replying to already encapsulates the relation of true positives to false positives.

No I don't believe it does. I interpret 99.9% accurate to mean 1 in 1000 false positives. If 0.1% of your population are terrorists that means each alert has a 50% chance of being correct. That's nowhere near good enough to fully automate things but it is quite reasonable assuming this is merely information provided to a human agent.

Whereas if only 0.001% of your population are terrorists then 99 out of 100 alerts are false positives at which point the system is well on its way to being useless.

There is an important difference between scenarios where we care about the relative versus absolute frequency of errors.

Post reply on HN