Earlier quoted context omitted.
The externalities of this policy don't justify that small benefit.
Define small benefit.
A slightly increased ability to detect a subset of unreported crimes.
UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
111–120 of 127 posts
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
[Original comment redacted]
With your sort of mentality I'm surprised you're comfortable mentioning your sexuality... You know there's a lot of homophobes around, no? And they're just getting more empowered under Trump, Farage, etc...
To give you your own advice, I'd suggest being more quiet about it, you never know if people around you have a hatred of gays.
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Can you give one example of that happening that's not coached in some context? These claims always seem pretty far fetched to me, bordering conspiratorial.
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yep, that's life, if something bothers you and it's already a crime then report it. I think that's the issue with this, and why we are seeing new laws introduced. If someone is assaulted in real life, the police can intervene. If people are constantly assaulted at a premises, that premise can lose it's license (for example a pub or bar). When moving to the online space, you are now potentially in contact with billi…
Believe it or not, when a crime has been committed these providers universally defer to the police whose remit is enforcement, a role they seem reluctant to undertake, I'm unconvinced this is anything other than a convenient revenue stream, an opportunity to steer public opinion, and a means of quashing dissent. Frankly, a few dick pics here and there seems wildly low-stakes for such expensive draconian authoritarian…
> steer public opinion, and a means of quashing dissent.
This line is trotted out a lot, but exactly how?
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#115This website recommends Gab, Truth Social and X under the claim "Unlike Big Tech companies, which often harvest user data for profit, these smaller, privacy-focused platforms tend to resist such practices". https://reclaimthenet.org/free-speech-friendly-and-privacy-f...
Well, that makes everything they say immediately and deeply suspect.
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#116Most 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…
Adobe isn't the creator of child porn when Photoshop is interacted with a child pornographer. So why are you considering xAI the creator when it's the tool that's being interacted with? The human child pornographer using tools is the one who's creating it, not the tools.
Can I ask photoshop to generate the image and it magically does it?
If Grok doesn't have the controls in place, and Elon Musk refuses to add them, then it is a child porn machine. I would not want to be on the side defending that.
AI tools have democratised a lot of previously skilled labour, and now law needs to catch up. That is how the world has always worked. I'm sure piracy wasn't a major concern before we had ships transporting commerce.
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grok AI generating child pornography has been a leading news story in the British press for the past few days.
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.
It's still child porn. Now it's child porn that won't match existing hashes! What a great innovation X!
Grok nudifying images of children or woman in replies is not a good thing.
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Can you give one example of that happening that's not coached in some context? These claims always seem pretty far fetched to me, bordering conspiratorial.
British politicians are weenies who can't handle American banter. They get all bent out of shape when Americans tell British people that their government is replacing them with third worlders and they should start killing their politicians. The British government wants to ban this kind of criticism (probably because they're failing to refute it in the public's eye), but are powerless to stop Americans who are well within their legal rights to say things like this. In the past they relied on American corporations cooperating with their censorious requests even though it wasn't legally required, but now that you have people like Elon Musk openly defying the British government and even seeming to side with the aforementioned critics, the British government is all kinds of pissed.
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#119Earlier 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.
What makes you think this is an appropriate response to someone telling you what's been published in newspapers?
"It's not child porn because AI made it" is quite the take.
And people wonder why the UK introduces all of these bloody laws...
Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give one example of that happening that's not coached in some context? These claims always seem pretty far fetched to me, bordering conspiratorial.
British politicians are weenies who can't handle American banter. They get all bent out of shape when Americans tell British people that their government is replacing them with third worlders and they should start killing their politicians. The British government wants to ban this kind of criticism (probably because they're failing to refute it in the public's eye), but are powerless to stop Americans who are well wi…
I don't think you're commenting in good faith at all.
> They get all bent out of shape when Americans tell British people that their government is replacing them with third worlders and they should start killing their politicians.
>but are powerless to stop Americans who are well within their legal rights to say things like this.
Weird thing to say when it would be illegal in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_government_officia...