nice
EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
151–160 of 194 posts
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#152Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#153Earlier 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…
> 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%…
>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.
Genuinely, how do you expect someone concerned about child sex trafficking to receive this? "Oh, good point, I guess we can't do anything more to protect children because it isn't 'cost-effective'." Do you think that will be a common response?
>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.
I'm not even disagreeing with this point, I'm simply saying your response can't just be "no, they are the bad guy". That is not a winning political message. That's why the democratic socialist faction of the Democratic Party in the US is growing in popularity. You can't just call your opponent bad especially when your opponent is promising to address people's concerns, you need to actually engage with people about their concerns and offer solutions.
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#154The 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…
[deleted]
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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%…
>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. Genuinely, how do you expect someone concerned about child sex trafficking to receive this? "Oh, good point…
> Genuinely, how do you expect someone concerned about child sex trafficking to receive this? "Oh, good point, I guess we can't do anything more to protect children because it isn't 'cost-effective'." Do you think that will be a common response?
I'm taking it as a given that we shouldn't do things that aren't cost effective, because that's what "cost effective" means. There are things we could do that would cost six trillion dollars in order to save one life, and we're not going to do those things, because it would be patently unreasonable and cost dramatically more lives than that as a result of what those resources would have to be allocated from.
It's possible that there are cost effective things we could do that we're not currently doing, but those things tend to be uncontroversial, so when someone uncovers one it generally does actually get enacted and becomes the status quo. That's the issue: Name any given thing you suppose we should do instead of Chat Control. Enact it, as many of them already have been. Tomorrow they propose Chat Control again, so what now? Offering and even enacting an alternative hasn't satisfied them, they keep trying to pass it anyway.
> You can't just call your opponent bad especially when your opponent is promising to address people's concerns, you need to actually engage with people about their concerns and offer solutions.
What are you supposed to do when you've not only offered solutions but enacted and implemented them already and your opponent is a fear monger who will never be satisfied because they have an ulterior motive for their dangerous and ineffective proposal?
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#156lol, say someone publishes an E2E distributed extension to an existing chat protocol. Are you going to arrest someone for writing code? Are you going to arrest people who use private communications? Sounds like a legislator carve out hot and ready to happen. I get the point, ban E2E, OK sure, but what if some software is designed in such a way that the company doesn't provide it, but it just happens to be compatible…
It's all coming together: Even if an open protocol was developed and published, and everyone would just use AI to create their own app in order to be private, Google is shutting down that path by preventing "unsanctioned" apps from being installed (not to mention Apple, which already does it). People wouldn't be arrested for writing code, but as it happened in Spain, people with Pixels and GrapheneOS are already trea…
Do you have any references to the Spain thing?
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#157The 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…
>> would be addressing the "for the children" motivations seriously rather than fully dismissing them
Like actually finding and arresting Eipstein clients?
There’s no need to protect children when it’s higher ranking people doing the crime I guess
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone. Politicians and all their communication are to be excluded, for they have decided it is obvious that we can trust them. It's just the rest of the world that is considered untrustworthy. This also absolves them from having to go through a trial period of having the software tested on themselves, so they will never have to know about any ridiculous false positives. Or worse: all the stuff they communicate…
As far as I remember, law enforcement officers or army people were to be exempted too
Famously law enforcement don’t commit crimes and don’t need to be held accountable
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
The name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.
Not everyone. Politicians and all their communication are to be excluded, for they have decided it is obvious that we can trust them. It's just the rest of the world that is considered untrustworthy. This also absolves them from having to go through a trial period of having the software tested on themselves, so they will never have to know about any ridiculous false positives. Or worse: all the stuff they communicate…
> Politicians and all their communication are to be excluded, for they have decided it is obvious that we can trust them
What’s the point of criticising USSR and China only to reinvent it
Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
#160[flagged]