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

EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

cyberinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 194 posts

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#141

Post by slg »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #134
slg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like if people wanted to counter this push, the more effective route would be addressing the "for the children" motivations seriously rather than fully dismissing them. You could cut the legs out of this effort by capturing the part of the population that does have an honest desire to protect children by offering an alternative that actually protects children. Instead, that concern is treated as 100% disingenu…

I don't think I agree - "think of the children" is not primarily a rational argument, it's more an emotional and political lever that is used to frame anyone in opposition as being opposed to more child safety, which is very obviously a bad thing. It creates a moral asymmetry where one group is "defending children" and another group is "defending an abstract concept", but group A wins out primarily due to millions of…

>It creates a moral asymmetry where one group is "defending children" and another group is "defending an abstract concept", but group A wins out primarily due to millions of years of human evolution. It has very little (IMO) to do with the actual underlying concepts being debated.

You aren't actually engaging with why group A wins. Those "millions of years of human evolution" actually instilled in people a desire to protect children.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#142

Post by msm_ »

slg wrote: post #141
InvertedRhodium wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I agree - "think of the children" is not primarily a rational argument, it's more an emotional and political lever that is used to frame anyone in opposition as being opposed to more child safety, which is very obviously a bad thing. It creates a moral asymmetry where one group is "defending children" and another group is "defending an abstract concept", but group A wins out primarily due to millions of…

>It creates a moral asymmetry where one group is "defending children" and another group is "defending an abstract concept", but group A wins out primarily due to millions of years of human evolution. It has very little (IMO) to do with the actual underlying concepts being debated. You aren't actually engaging with why group A wins. Those "millions of years of human evolution" actually instilled in people a desire to…

Of course, just like it instilled a desire to consume a lot of calorie-dense food. "Desire to protect the children" in this case is a knee-jerk reaction, or a thought terminating cliche.

For example, how many children will this actually protect? How many children will this harm? How many adults will be harmed by inevitable side-effects that arise? Those questions are not discussed or even considered.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#143

Post by trinsic2 »

rwyinuse wrote: post #116
logicchains wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately the US has not only freedom of speech in the constitution but also tens of millions of armed civilians that place a hard limit on how much control the government can have over people's speech. The only reason the Chinese government can achieve such control over speech is because it can disappear anyone who speaks against it. It doesn't even need guns; Nepalese youth managed to stop social media censorship…

America may have tens of millions of armed civilians, but I'm not convinced that so many of them care about freedom of speech, particularly when it comes to people who they disagree with.

Yeah there is proof of that. I wonder if most of those Americans that believe in freedom probably are the ones that voted in Trump and now look at where we are at.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#144

Post by nurumaik »

pton_xd wrote: post #17

I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they need access to all of your data.

Very clear position: they want absolute control over both companies and citizens

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#145

Post by slg »

msm_ wrote: post #142
slg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It creates a moral asymmetry where one group is "defending children" and another group is "defending an abstract concept", but group A wins out primarily due to millions of years of human evolution. It has very little (IMO) to do with the actual underlying concepts being debated. You aren't actually engaging with why group A wins. Those "millions of years of human evolution" actually instilled in people a desire to…

Of course, just like it instilled a desire to consume a lot of calorie-dense food. "Desire to protect the children" in this case is a knee-jerk reaction, or a thought terminating cliche. For example, how many children will this actually protect? How many children will this harm? How many adults will be harmed by inevitable side-effects that arise? Those questions are not discussed or even considered.

Because those questions are meaningless to many people if you aren't offering any solution of your own to address their concerns. For the people who genuinely care about this issue, an obvious response you will get is "how many children are you willing to allow to be sex trafficked to preserve your privacy?"

You can't win a debate by claiming your concerns invalidate their concerns. You need to actually engage with them on the issue they care about.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#146

Post by AnthonyMouse »

slg wrote: post #120
budududuroiu wrote: post #91

The Internet Watch Foundation, an organisation funded by almost all of big tech, is already at work pushing for client side scanning next [1], for the children, of course. [1] https://www.iwf.org.uk/policy-work/preventing-the-upload-of-...

I feel like if people wanted to counter this push, the more effective route would be addressing the "for the children" motivations seriously rather than fully dismissing them. You could cut the legs out of this effort by capturing the part of the population that does have an honest desire to protect children by offering an alternative that actually protects children. Instead, that concern is treated as 100% disingenu…

> You could cut the legs out of this effort by capturing the part of the population that does have an honest desire to protect children by offering an alternative that actually protects children.

There are many, many things we can do that actually protect children -- and we generally already do them. That's the nature of the problem. After you do all of the things that are reasonable and cost effective, it solves 90% of the problem, 95% of the problem, 99% of the problem, but never 100% of the problem.

So you can't give them something that does that. The thing they're proposing doesn't even do that. Nothing does. And then disingenuous opportunists keep proposing the thing that should never be done because they know it lets them paint you as the bad guy for having to tell them no again and again.

What you need instead is to identify and strip power and resources from the people who keep proposing it.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#147

Post by InvertedRhodium »

slg wrote: post #141
InvertedRhodium wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I agree - "think of the children" is not primarily a rational argument, it's more an emotional and political lever that is used to frame anyone in opposition as being opposed to more child safety, which is very obviously a bad thing. It creates a moral asymmetry where one group is "defending children" and another group is "defending an abstract concept", but group A wins out primarily due to millions of…

>It creates a moral asymmetry where one group is "defending children" and another group is "defending an abstract concept", but group A wins out primarily due to millions of years of human evolution. It has very little (IMO) to do with the actual underlying concepts being debated. You aren't actually engaging with why group A wins. Those "millions of years of human evolution" actually instilled in people a desire to…

I am engaging with why group A wins: they win because the emotional prior is doing most of the work, not because the underlying argument necessarily has merit.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#148

Post by [deleted] »

vlian2088 wrote: post #85
joe463369 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unquestioned view in certain circles - including here - is that when the EU/UK does something that chips away at people's online privacy, there's un ulterior motive. It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM and young people having their mind twisted by social media. The electorate do seem to be keen on some sort of action.

>It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM except that honest-to-God child rapists get extremely lenient sentences in Western Europe and rarely (if ever) get deported afterwards.

[deleted]

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#149

Post by Jensson »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #132

Even if defeated, this is Terminator legislation - it will never stop coming back until it wins.

And then the anti terminator legislation where people will propose to end this over and over until its ended. EU isn't like USA, you have endless proposals in both directions.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#150

Post by _carbyau_ »

xienze wrote: post #115
fakedang wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the armed civilian population done anything to protect constitutional rights? Last time a section of them mobilized, it was to overthrow a rightfully elected government.

They were unarmed and the government was and continues to be scared shitless of that "attempted overthrow" (with no weapons? Does anyone really believe that had any chance of succeeding?) to this very day. Seems to me like that Second Amendment thing could be very effective with a sufficiently motivated population.

> They were unarmed and the government was...

Exhibit A says: Bullshit.

[A] https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-capitol-attack-rioters...

Post reply on HN