231–240 of 385 posts
I don't understand how Bulgaria supports the idea while most of its representatives are allegedly against it. How does that work?
The national government of Bulgaria's position isn't necessarily in line with Bulgarian MEPs.
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.
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.
https://www.koffellaw.com/blog/google-ai-technology-flags-da...
Chat control 1.0 "A temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive that allowed (but did not require) providers to scan private messages of unsuspected users for potential child sexual abuse material." Does that imply it's currently not allowed? EDIT: apparently not enforced at least: "Chat Control 1.0 expires The legal ground for voluntary, indiscriminate scanning ends. Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Snap state they…
Not for the last few months, no; Chat Control 1 expired.
Earlier 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.
Funny you bring this up. Back in the day when I was like 15 and DC++ was still a thing, I used to browse people's shared folders. One day I came across a file called "the paradox of false positive". It was a 1 pager that described how a machine which is 99.9% accurate at identifying terrorists would be completely useless due to this false positive base rate fallacy you're describing. It really stuck with me throughou…
[flagged]
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.
To 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…
>Europe is our home.
At the same time parts of my country feel less and less like home if at all and those politicians really hate adressing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> There is an important difference between scenarios where we care about the relative versus absolute frequency of errors.
The context is chat control without probable cause over the whole population of Europe with a low prevalence. My point, and presumably that of OP, is that even a small relative frequency of errors will yield an unsustainably high absolute frequncy of errors.
> This is merely information provided to a human agent.
It will be in theory. In practice the human agent will just forward the decision. A human agent is not sufficient; you need to test only with probable cause for the kind of scenario we're talking about. The exact opposite of "Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0".
P.S.: The comment I originally replied to choose a very convoluted way of saying that the false discovery rate of the test matters for a proper evaluation. Both you and they explain this by throwing numbers without context in combination with slightly inaccurate definitions. I got the definitions mixed up differently, which led to this follow-up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
EU has quite successfully decoupled from Russia already, we aren't heavily dependent on Russian energy or other natural resources anymore. Also, EU countries in Eastern Europe do already have a high military spending, and even Western European countries are improving. The situation is less than ideal but not hopeless.
I would really challenge that idea that increasing military spending will create a solid and useful military force.
Most of the money you inject within the military industrial complex is wasted and stolen. At some point it can become counterproductive, we can see it with the US military where recently Iran’s $30k shahed drone destroys $300M US radars.
Note that today's politician never state goals in practical military terms but rather in billions and trillions spent. So they are always victorious. I do not remember Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte or Genghis Khan stating their objectives in terms of money spent.
[flagged]
The party they want to ban are neo-Nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just noticing that only European people seem to be disallowed from calling their land "their land" and outsiders "outsiders". it's "blut and soil", as if the men who fought Nazis fought Nazis for some high-minded ideals rather than their land and their people.
Oh, you're just noticing are you ? Who are those people who are "disallowing" you from calling your land your land ? How do you handle living under such oppression ? Just come out of the woods will you It turns out people don't like to be invaded, yes, simple as. Of course you would very much like to convince everyone that immigration is just the same as an invasion and thus, the same way to deal with it is justified…
>Who are those people who are "disallowing" you from calling your land your land ?