191–200 of 592 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's quite a stretch for a title ambiguity: attorney general or soft drink? Submitted title was "AG Barr Will Ask Zuckerberg To Halt Plans For End-To-End Encryption".
I mean, I doubt that many UK natives know the name of the US Attorney General off the top of their heads. It seems like a reasonable mixup to me.
But I agree that AG should be expanded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of domestic disturbances happen in private homes. Should they put cameras there, too?
Alexa should be enough…
PRISM was proof that governments pressure tech companies to become sources.
How to build a program to retain power:
1) Make new tech that is very convenient but has potential to become surveillance vector. -> e.g, Phone with voice recordings, fingerprint Face ID, location data, network of friends. Smart TV, smart watch, smart locks, Alexa, etc. 2) Support consumer adoption. 3) Keep public attention on the evils of foreign states and domestic terrorism. 4) Convert devices into active surveillance sources citing home security, public safety and the classic “what do you have to hide?”. 5) Do so as fast as possible without creating a revolt. 6) Have such pervasive surveillance that it becomes increasingly difficult to discuss, assemble and revolt. 7) Continue to introduce more controls, reduce freedoms, increase work week, taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mining and storing user data is in no way a requirement to run ads.
So using data for optimization should be banned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called "Telescreen" and will be soon available.
It's called laptop, smartphone and smart tv, is already available and we do know it's already watched and listened to.
Specifically Apple-related and North American examples?
So, when is ban on guns, cars and parents coming? Each of them killed countless kids.
> mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. Oh, bull crap. By this argument, literally no protection or liberty that allows even one child to be harmed could ever be tolerated. Why stop at vetting baby-sitters or teachers? We ought to require mandatory background checks for every person who ever visits a family or goes into a public space that might contain children. Law enforcement also o…
> We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety. Oh, so you’re asking for more end-to-end encryption? > While the letter acknowledges that Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content t…
99% of domestic disturbances happen in private homes. Should they put cameras there, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if the parents are the abusers, then it's okay? I am still pro E2E encryption, especially given the Snowden revelations (the US gov cannot be trusted to be responsible), but it does come at a high cost. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
The thought that people can remove all crime or get anywhere near it is faulty from first axioms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." If you start thinking that parents "can be" the criminals then you've decided that parents are automatically guilty and must be proved innocent. This goes against the very moral fiber of the ent…
It's definitely possible to eliminate all crime with total surveillance with a high degree of accuracy.
We probably shouldn't, especially not without being able to quickly update our laws, but it could be done. Imagine if anyone going over the speed limit was instantly charged a fine. We can do that today with complete accuracy, but we choose not to do enforcement that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not quite getting it. You measure accuracy of detection via a training set of definitely known examples, and comparing it to the detections reported by your system. You can say with certainty that their system catches 99% of your training data set, but that doesn't mean it Will generalize to "all permutations of child abuse ever". That's two totally different things. In the end their use of that statistic illu…
By this standard, no system could ever say that it generalizes to all permutations. Especially when the definition of the measurement outcome (child abuse) varies.
You are now the thorn in the side of every AI salesman trying to pitch you his Neural Net based wonder machine, or politician trying to sell you on giving up rights because they need to be able to violate everyone's privacy because statistics.
If you understand the actual nature of these measurements, it becomes quite a bit more difficult to let the "zomg neato" factor run away with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There has to be some nuance from the absolute privacy folks on this one. How do we balance the need to fight child abuse with privacy? There isn't. This is a logical fallacy. Violating everyone's privacy is not the way to fight child abuse, not even one of the ways that can do anything to prevent it.
I'm not sure what the logical fallacy is you're referring to. I'm not advocating that we backdoor encryption. I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. I guess your position is one of an absolute, and therefore, to me, not especially interesting. I am curious what you think are the ways we can fight child abuse. It seems to me we have some obligation as technologists to see that our works aren't us…
Now we are seeing multiple instances where scapegoats and boogeymen are being used to systematically strip our rights away. The worst part of the whole thing is that when I attempt to fight for my privacy, I would be seen as supporting child pornography. It is an insidious tactic that is unreasonably effective.