EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by paisawalla » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #161

paisawalla wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an organisation funded by almost all of big tech Agreed, and this sucks, but what should be done about this? Some NGO called "We Stop Bad Guys" approaches your company with its hand out. You have two choices: 1. kick down some money, get great headlines 2. don't, and then have it known that you don't support stopping Bad Guys -- then maybe write ten thousand never-to-be-read words about how your position is actuall…

How is it rational? What's going to stop a different We Stop Really Bad Guys NGO from showing up next. Corporations are perfectly capable of not getting involved when they don't want to.

when people say "it's rational" they're invoking this feature of rationality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality

in other words, if you see behavior in others that doesn't seem reasonable, there's two possibilities:

1. it makes sense to the subject, using the axioms they're reasoning from, which they've chosen because they have a stake in the outcome

2. an uninvolved, anonymous commenter on the internet knows -- better than the subject -- what's best for them

It's not always the case that (1) is correct, but it's the better prior than (2). And this fact being a downvote magnet here doesn't change that.

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

#182

Post by slg » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155

slg wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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.

The problem with describing it in terms of cost-effectiveness is that you now have to put a price on how much we can justify spending on child sex trafficking. What is that number? How much is too much to save a child? How can you possibly answer that in a satisfying way?

>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.

>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?

The proposal up-thread seems like a good place to start. If we believe that these tech companies have through their software and platforms made it easier to exploit children, that justifies taxing them to offset the negative externalities they create. We then take that money and use it to increase funding for investigation and enforcement. I have no idea if that will work, but it at least puts the people you view as the enemy on the defensive and gives you the chance to win some of their supporters back to your side. Because right now you're letting those fearmongers dictate the terms of this political debate and their persistence on this issue shows you aren't making any progress in changing that.

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

#183

Post by slg » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #157

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…

>> 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

>Like actually finding and arresting Eipstein clients?

Genuinely yes. It's a viable political strategy to respond to this with a redirection towards Epstein. "How can we waste time on these chat controls when there are obviously people guilty of the worst version of these crimes that go unpunished due to their money and connections? We need to focus on those criminals instead."

Once again, this is a political problem, it needs to be solved with politics.

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

#184

Post by slg » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #170

slg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Ok, but by this logic all freedom of citizens can be taken away, because it could lead to a single child being trafficked. The end result is that even the children you're trying to protect are now under permanent surveillance of an authoritarian government where sex trafficking probably still happens, but the law permits the government to wrongfully ruin more people's lives than are saved by the claimed "noble" act.

>Ok, but by this logic all freedom of citizens can be taken away, because it could lead to a single child being trafficked.

No one is advocating for this. You're creating a straw man argument and those type of arguments are never persuasive. Once again, if you want to actually end this debate once and for all, you need an actual argument that can persuade people to your side.

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

#185

Post by joe463369 » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 7:01 PM UTC

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.

> except that honest-to-God child rapists get extremely lenient sentences in Western Europe and rarely (if ever) get deported afterwards.

Where would you imagine western European rapists could be deported to? Presumably Fred West, Jimmy Savile, Ted Heath, Gary Glitter, Richard Huckle, Ian Watkins, Stewart Hall and Fred Talbot need to be sent back to Pakistan or similar where they learnt their wicked ways. You daft get

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

#186

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 8:08 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #182

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. The pro…

> The problem with describing it in terms of cost-effectiveness is that you now have to put a price on how much we can justify spending on child sex trafficking.

The problem with not doing this is that you in fact actually have to do it, or else what are you going to describe as the problem with the proposal that would spend six trillion dollars to save one life?

> If we believe that these tech companies have through their software and platforms made it easier to exploit children, that justifies taxing them to offset the negative externalities they create. We then take that money and use it to increase funding for investigation and enforcement.

The problem with that proposal is that it's foolish. Special-purpose taxes should only be used if you're specifically trying to discourage something (e.g. cigarettes) since a) they're inefficient because you need a wasteful new collections bureaucracy instead of using the existing already paid for apparatus for collecting general revenues (money should go to protecting kids, not tax bureaucrats) and b) you're then targeting a specific industry for a new disadvantage which will oppose it much more strongly than trying to get the same amount of money from the general fund.

The actual meat of that proposal is to increase funding for law enforcement to investigate child exploitation. But that's exactly the sort of thing where if it's cost effective to do that then it will have no meaningful opposition and then will either be enacted without controversy or already has been. At which point they immediately go back to trying to pass Chat Control.

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

#187

Post by fc417fc802 » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 8:26 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #182

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. The pro…

> If we believe that these tech companies have through their software and platforms made it easier to exploit children, that justifies ...

Do we believe that? At least relative to the rest of the internet (ie not-big-tech)? Isn't singling out big tech in this manner just a talking point used by the disingenuous actors attempting to foist this on us?

What is even the supposed motivating ill here? What exactly do you mean by the phrasing "exploit children"? That's awfully vague for something we're supposed to be targeting.

> ... at least puts the people you view as the enemy on the defensive ...

It feels like you're ignoring the point you're responding to here. The pattern outlined was one of bad faith, where after each reasonable attempt the process merely repeats itself ad nauseam. So then in effect your suggestion is to follow the same strategy that hasn't worked in the past.

We aren't dealing with a good faith opponent who will back down when an alternative wins out. They will return with the same argument, and it will still hold sway with the same people, because the rate of the crimes in question will almost certainly never reach zero. At some point the political solution must be to attempt to educate those who are being taken advantage of by the bad actor. To refuse further accommodations when the other party is clearly acting under false pretenses.

It also seems like you're neglecting to address the relative expense. Chat control is cheap compared with Wyden's proposal.

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

#188

Post by fc417fc802 » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 8:48 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #184

imtringued wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but by this logic all freedom of citizens can be taken away, because it could lead to a single child being trafficked. The end result is that even the children you're trying to protect are now under permanent surveillance of an authoritarian government where sex trafficking probably still happens, but the law permits the government to wrongfully ruin more people's lives than are saved by the claimed "noble" act.

>Ok, but by this logic all freedom of citizens can be taken away, because it could lead to a single child being trafficked. No one is advocating for this. You're creating a straw man argument and those type of arguments are never persuasive. Once again, if you want to actually end this debate once and for all, you need an actual argument that can persuade people to your side.

It's not a straw man that's the natural extrapolation of your earlier logic.

> 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?"

I think you are confusing genuine caring with political radicalization. The behavior you're describing there isn't that of rational supporters but rather inflamed zealots.

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

#189

Post by fc417fc802 » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 8:57 PM UTC

_carbyau_ wrote: post #150

xienze wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

In context a few handguns clearly isn't what was meant.

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

#190

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jul 09, 2026, 8:59 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #145

msm_ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Wait a minute. If the claim is that we're going to destroy privacy to protect children, asking first for proof that it will actually help children doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

I can admit that your concern is perfectly valid, even share your concern, and still oppose your solution if your solution won't actually work. In fact, I would argue that I have a greater concern for the problem, because I care enough to worry about actually solving it, instead of just doing some ineffective measure that looks good.

That's at the level of reality, though. At the level of how this gets spun in media and politics, it doesn't often work that way. Performative action too often rules the day. Recognize it for what it is, though - performative. Asking if the solution actually works is a valid real-world response, even if it doesn't play politically.