[flagged]
[flagged]
Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
191–200 of 385 posts
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#192What european parties or people are pushing for chat controls?
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#193To everyone who wants to dismantle the EU: this is not the solution. Dismantling the EU is like burning down your own house just to get rid of flies. The UK left the EU and implemented its own version of chat control - Online Safety Act - without any transparency or real opposition. The right solution is the political fight. Europe is our home. We must keep it in good shape by getting rid of anything that makes it wo…
The EU is beyond reform, this law targets exactly this: nascent political projects that threaten the status quo.
I believe that the EU will cause so much strife that the long peace we've enjoyed on the continent will be brought to an end, not because of the EU, but because of the wedges drawn between pro-EU and EU-skeptic countries.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#194What european parties or people are pushing for chat controls?
Conservatives and right-wing. Gives them more control. It‘s a pattern that gets obvious once you see it. It’s so they can hide their own secrets better. In Germany, we have a law that grants you access to information, the "Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“. This was used in the past to uncover morally wrong or illegal behavior, mostly done by the conservative party. This party, as they are currently in charge, is now actively working to change the law, so it's in their benefit.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#195Most 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.
Yep, and this is a perfect example of a base rate fallacy situation... even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.
> even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.
If the scanner is 99.99% accurate, then most classifications will be correct.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I would assume the actual reality of what can be done that is also respecting individual country needs and the EU ad a whole is at least an extra level of complexity than the reduction of those agreements. Add to that the risk that every diminishing level of comfort for a population in EU seems to bring new percentages for extremist parties. The second order and third order effects of any decision are too big and alm…
> bring new percentages for extremist parties
Yup, go set up an EU Stasi ready for them when they get to run the show.
What is there to debate? The US and Israel have attacked Iran without a very clear plan to prevent it from acquiring nuclear capability and this has backfired with Hormuz straight traffic being blocked. Whatever the EU says at this point won't solve anything. What they've done up to this point, stay out of it, was the correct corse of action. Right now the US is basically bullying Iran to make a deal or get bombed.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, and this is a perfect example of a base rate fallacy situation... even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.
> even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives. If the scanner is 99.99% accurate, then most classifications will be correct.
How many child abusers do you think there are out there?
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, and this is a perfect example of a base rate fallacy situation... even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.
> even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives. If the scanner is 99.99% accurate, then most classifications will be correct.
If you scan 1,000,000 pictures (with let's say 10 CSAM), you'll have 100 false positives and 10 true positives, giving you like only 10% correct results
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, and this is a perfect example of a base rate fallacy situation... even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.
> even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives. If the scanner is 99.99% accurate, then most classifications will be correct.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#200What european parties or people are pushing for chat controls?
Conservatives and right-wing. Gives them more control. It‘s a pattern that gets obvious once you see it. It’s so they can hide their own secrets better. In Germany, we have a law that grants you access to information, the "Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“. This was used in the past to uncover morally wrong or illegal behavior, mostly done by the conservative party. This party, as they are currently in charge, is now acti…
I’m not familiar with the political landscape in Europe so it may well be mostly people on the right pushing this, but man I wish we could stop framing everything as left vs right.
That framing is distracting us from the authoritarian vs civil liberties issues, which is a dangerous and immediate threat to our ability to have any significant political influence of any kind.