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

UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#101

Post by mrbadguy »

yladiz wrote: post #57
HPsquared wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things you mention are already illegal. The effective proven solution is to enforce existing laws, to punish and deter bad behaviour like any other crime. This incongruence is why a lot of people don't take the reasoning at face value and see it as only rhetorical justification for increased surveillance, which is widely understood as something the state wants do do anyway.

How do you deal with a crime that isn’t reported due to things like shame? Not to say that we need to scan messages to enforce nudes not to be sent, but I don’t think you can say “just enforce existing laws” and be done with it, it’s not that simple.

If people don’t report crime then we have to leave it. The answer can’t be just to invade everyone’s privacy looking for crimes (before they’re even committed!)

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#102

Post by rjdj377dhabsn »

6LLvveMx2koXfwn wrote: post #44

I understand the rage generated here, but what is the alternative? If a service implements privacy invading 'features' then we have the choice not to use that service. Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL. What are we to do if not monitor? And how to make that scalable if not to introduce autom…

> too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online

If you don't like interacting with certain types of people online, then make or join a safe space that protects you from the offensive content. Don't impose your specific set of morals on the rest of us.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#103

Post by rjdj377dhabsn »

flumpcakes wrote: post #45

Most of these comments I think are off the mark. For some reason anything to do with EU or the UK legislating to protect citizenry is seen as some Orwellian conspiracy to mind control people. I agree some of the policies feel like always using a hammer - but I strongly suspect it's because the tech industry is clearly not playing ball. Children being sent dick pics, or AI generated nudes of them being sent around sch…

> Children being sent dick pics, or AI generated nudes of them being sent around schools, etc. are real problems facing real normal people.

These are relatively minor problems. Certainly not something that warrants invasive government intervention.

If parents are that worried about their kids seeing some porn, then they should either not give smartphones to them at all or install some kind of local protection software.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#104

Post by rjdj377dhabsn »

yladiz wrote: post #57
HPsquared wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things you mention are already illegal. The effective proven solution is to enforce existing laws, to punish and deter bad behaviour like any other crime. This incongruence is why a lot of people don't take the reasoning at face value and see it as only rhetorical justification for increased surveillance, which is widely understood as something the state wants do do anyway.

How do you deal with a crime that isn’t reported due to things like shame? Not to say that we need to scan messages to enforce nudes not to be sent, but I don’t think you can say “just enforce existing laws” and be done with it, it’s not that simple.

> How do you deal with a crime that isn’t reported due to things like shame?

You don't.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#105

Post by mikkupikku »

btasker wrote: post #74
mikkupikku wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All images uploaded to twitter, or any other lawful American social media platform, are perceptually hashed and checked against databases of known CSAM. Computer generated pornography, while obviously odious, is not technically illegal in the US. And in either case, twitter has been a dumping ground of such crap for as long as it has existed. In short, with all due respect, get a grip.

All of what you said could be true and it'd *still* be wrong for Grok to be allowed to generate it. All Musk actually needed to say was "oh fuck, we'll fix that". Instead, he responded with laughing emojiis and nothing's changed. > is not technically illegal in the US Bully for you. X is operating in the UK and it *is* illegal here (and not just here). X can either comply with our laws (and the associated moral stand…

Saying that Musk should stop his bot from generating underage waifus is fine and agreeable, but construing that with actual CSAM is plainly manipulative. Of course, the British media has long been known for ""nonce"" hysteria, probably because they know the government and royales are degenerate criminals but don't have the spine to go against the local establishment for it, so instead they redirect that energy in bizarre directions.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_U-7L1tmBAo

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#106

Post by mikkupikku »

flumpcakes wrote: post #86
munksbeer wrote: post #72

> A major expansion of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) has taken effect, legally obliging digital platforms to deploy surveillance-style systems that scan, detect, and block user content before it can be seen. If this is implemented as it reads, just a note to everyone else, everywhere in the world: For this policy to work, everything must be scanned. So now, every time you communicate with someone in the UK, your c…

Well, yes, because it is designed to protect UK citizens. As much as GDPR applies "everywhere in the world" when interacting with EU citizens. Just as much as my communications are scanned when interacting with US citizens with PRISM. I'd argue that is exponentially more dangerous and nefarious given it's apparently illegality and (once) top secrecy.

It's designed to facilitate the enforcement of prohibition of broad classes of criticism against the British government and ruling caste.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599665 "Influence over public discourse."

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#107

Post by tremon »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #80
like_any_other wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't buy into that framing either. Optional scanning - if a user wants to, they are free to download government spyware onto their phone/computer and do all the scanning they want, local or otherwise. No new laws needed.

I agree. If someone is happy for a government worker/algorithm to snoop through everything they send to anyone, feel free to opt in, just don't force us to participate.

But that someone is forcing all their contacts into the snooping scheme unless they never communicate with anyone.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#108

Post by rdm_blackhole »

tremon wrote: post #107
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. If someone is happy for a government worker/algorithm to snoop through everything they send to anyone, feel free to opt in, just don't force us to participate.

But that someone is forcing all their contacts into the snooping scheme unless they never communicate with anyone.

That is why I said for them and their family.

If you use app A and that app is scanned for "malicious" content then I will message you on app B where there is no such scanning. If you don't want to use app B then I guess we can't be friends.

I mean at some point you need to make some choices.

But the beauty is that if anyone wants to talk through app A exclusively and their contacts are happy to respond on the same platform, then they can do that.

The rest of us can use app B.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#109

Post by [deleted] »

netsharc wrote: post #95
hexbin010 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows, I haven't searched for unbiased data to be honest But they can be more judicious with whom they share contact details, and use the block button. They are not forced to be the recipient of any message. Do you think the only solution is for a government backdoor?

Yeah, the government's idea is moronic. But making it the victims' responsibility ("don't share your number indiscriminately") is depressing too. How about make it easier to prosecute the unsolicited sending. How about educating people not to be fuckwits.. Yeah prosecution makes lives more difficult, it's rife for abuse (the recipient could fake evidence, the sender could claim he was hacked/his friend took his unloc…

[deleted]

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#110

Post by hexbin010 »

netsharc wrote: post #95
hexbin010 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows, I haven't searched for unbiased data to be honest But they can be more judicious with whom they share contact details, and use the block button. They are not forced to be the recipient of any message. Do you think the only solution is for a government backdoor?

Yeah, the government's idea is moronic. But making it the victims' responsibility ("don't share your number indiscriminately") is depressing too. How about make it easier to prosecute the unsolicited sending. How about educating people not to be fuckwits.. Yeah prosecution makes lives more difficult, it's rife for abuse (the recipient could fake evidence, the sender could claim he was hacked/his friend took his unloc…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN