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

European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

lightbluetouchpaper.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 199 posts

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#21

Post by Syonyk »

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo...

This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is and isn't CSAM? That's a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door."

I like this bit, though:

> The processing of users’ personal data for the purposes of detecting, reporting and removing online child sexual abuse has a significant impact on users’ rights and can be justified only in view of the importance of preventing and combating online child sexual abuse.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#22

Post by breakfastduck »

work_ta_220503 wrote: post #14

I'd love to know what percentage of those CSAM numbers are inflated by 14-17 yrs old sharing their own pictures (and their SOs leaking to someone else w/o permission) versus what most of the people imagine when government yells "CP!!!"

70-80% total is the suggested inflation, my guess on that.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#23

Post by breakfastduck »

Syonyk wrote: post #21

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is a…

Why do you like that?

They can focus on ONE justification which is 'acceptable'. But one justification is all they need. They don't need more than one for total access.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#25

Post by Syonyk »

breakfastduck wrote: post #23
Syonyk wrote: post #21

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is a…

Why do you like that? They can focus on ONE justification which is 'acceptable'. But one justification is all they need. They don't need more than one for total access.

Just the brazen "Yeah, privacy and stuff are important, But the Children!" phrasing of it. They're not even trying to pretend it's anything but an excuse anymore.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#26

Post by Syonyk »

Ambolia wrote: post #16
fithisux wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested though. Any starter guide?

Well, there's nothing properly developed, that's why we are still here. The basic building blocks are all there, cryptography for privacy and identity. p2p networks for data transfer have worked in the piracy world for many years too. What is missing is putting it all together and be able to replicate the network effects you get from centralized media, like if you are able to reach one person, be able to reach in a s…

Matrix, in "few users per server, federated" sort of deployments, seems it would accomplish a lot of this.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#27

Post by BlargMcLarg »

Syonyk wrote: post #21

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is a…

I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations":

>As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the detection of the dissemination of known and new child sexual abuse material), since it requires automatically scanning through texts in interpersonal communications. It is important to bear in mind in this regard that such scanning is often the only possible way to detect it and that the technology used does not ‘understand’ the content of the communications but rather looks for known, pre-identified patterns that indicate potential grooming. Detection technologies have also already acquired a high degree of accuracy, although human oversight and review remain necessary, and indicators of ‘grooming’ are becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms learn.

That whole paragraph sounds a lot more terrifying and intrusive. At least they admit the flaws, but I haven't quite had the best experience with the EU's way of handling this stuff.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#28

Post by unethical_ban »

boredumb wrote: post #4

Now that covid is waning, we're back to 'the kids' in order to allow governments absurd amounts of power over individuals. None of these excuses are put forth in order to further the argument, it's to create a trap for detractors and be able to label them as evil people, killing grandma, hating kids, supporting terror, etc etc.

Just for the record, one can believe in Covid restrictions of 2020 and also believe this CSAM action is absurd and anti-privacy.

Equating them is shallow at best and misleading at worst.

Re: European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids

#29

Post by Syonyk »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #27
Syonyk wrote: post #21

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is a…

I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": > As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the d…

That's one of them, yes. I've not had the time to read the whole thing today, and probably won't have time, so I'm trying to encourage people to dig through it a bit themselves and get a feel for just how "But the Children!" it is, as a reason to violate every bit of privacy they think they can get away with.
Post reply on HN