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

The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

mastodon.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 300 posts

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#201

Post by p_l »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #197
pfortuny wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem lies on the wide margin of interpretation those laws give the police. 50kph is a number. "Sexualized drawings of children" is certainly open to discussion.

I know it's HN and we love her numbers but legislation that requires interpretation by judge or jury isn't at all unusual. There are also several layers of oversight and courts of appeal in the UK, which are separate from the government.

For a long time there was push to handle some of that under magistrate courts and other approaches so that to properly defend you have to appeal to actually get in front of proper court.

There was at least one case where prosecution never, ever, seen the evidence of supposed CSAM found on accused's computer, and if not for the lucky person having a slightly less overworked public defender, they had high chances of being found "guilty" if of minor offense for having what used to be staple of family photo albums - photo of the toddler grand-kids playing in kiddy pool, which was reported by computer tech at a laptop repair business.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#202

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

Jigsy wrote: post #153

The problem with "child abuse" is that some countries classify drawing things as "child abuse," or "rape," or "animal abuse." (Something I don't agree with.) I mentioned in another thread a few weeks back that I got raided by the British police last February for "uploading/downloading "illegal" anime artwork on one of the (anime) artwork websites we're criminally investigating." (Yes, the British police are criminall…

Honestly I have been wondering more and more about it but what stops websites from having a bot on signal/(session? although I hate the crypto stuff/ may I recommend matrix/simplex)?

Like creating a bot on signal which has its own phone number (and sorry that you got raided) but I am pretty sure that the upload/download of anime artwork websites could be done through signal and the only thing I know about signal is that the one time US govt asked it to share something the only thing it gave was the ip address and when registered and literally nothing else.

Signal recently added the abilities of usernames which keep it private and with many other things I think this is a fascinating idea to build upon. I see a lot of telegram bots but honestly signal has a hard time making bots in general because they dont really surface an api itself so people go ahead and all signal's api you see on github use this project which actually has decompiled version of java

Signal and proton are two organizations that I trust a lot in our current privacy hostile world and I hope that people who have built bots or have any suggestions/opinion can discuss it in this discussion as parts of the worlds are going towards authoritarianism.

Although going further into the thread, my naivety made me realize what sort of anime pictures we are talking about and I don't really support it but still this is being a slippery slope too where as other commenter pointed out, it can be used to get more spying overall on the general public too

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#203

Post by impossiblefork »

rjdj377dhabsn wrote: post #103
Sharlin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much really, unless the EU takes a big turn to the left. Which is unfortunately not something that's likely to happen anytime soon.

The left? The authoritarian politicians pushing this legislation in the EU are more leftist than right.

Centrists, I'd say. Same as the people pushing it in the UK.

The left, the anti-immigration parties and really, any party which isn't wholly 'let's do the same as we've always had' probably imagine that this would be used to their disadvantage somehow.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#204

Post by miroljub »

Jigsy wrote: post #153

The problem with "child abuse" is that some countries classify drawing things as "child abuse," or "rape," or "animal abuse." (Something I don't agree with.) I mentioned in another thread a few weeks back that I got raided by the British police last February for "uploading/downloading "illegal" anime artwork on one of the (anime) artwork websites we're criminally investigating." (Yes, the British police are criminall…

"God save the queen, the fascist regime"

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#205

Post by brabel »

elestor wrote: post #195
vbezhenar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of criminalising hand-made pictures? I just don't understand it. I could understand the point of criminalising child porn photos, as producing these photos obviously requires violating other laws (actually not obviously, as you can dress adult actors to look like children, but whatever). But things that are obviously drawn without any involvement of real children, what's wrong with them? Just keep th…

I'd say it makes a lot of sense. It likely encourages pedophilia, meaning people that consume such things will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay. It's similar to the way that regular porn affects the brain. I understand where you're coming from, though and I get your point, but I feel if someone consumes a lot of media of a certain type, they begin to 'embody' that media. Just don't goon.

I am not sure there is evidence that this is the case. The argument sounds a lot like those made by conservatives against gay people. Somehow, in their view, homosexuality is also just a first step towards “anything goes”, including incest, pedophilia, even bestiality. Porn, in this view, should increase rape, right? But that’s absolutely not the case. People seem to calm down if they can satisfy themselves with just watching it on a screen, even if it’s not real, as in cartoons or AI generated content. Would you change your opinion if evidence pointed to this being the case, or so you have other motives for still thinking even cartoons should be made illegal if depicting such content?

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#206

Post by scotty79 »

elestor wrote: post #195
vbezhenar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of criminalising hand-made pictures? I just don't understand it. I could understand the point of criminalising child porn photos, as producing these photos obviously requires violating other laws (actually not obviously, as you can dress adult actors to look like children, but whatever). But things that are obviously drawn without any involvement of real children, what's wrong with them? Just keep th…

I'd say it makes a lot of sense. It likely encourages pedophilia, meaning people that consume such things will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay. It's similar to the way that regular porn affects the brain. I understand where you're coming from, though and I get your point, but I feel if someone consumes a lot of media of a certain type, they begin to 'embody' that media. Just don't goon.

> It likely encourages pedophilia

Throught the same mechanism that violent games encourage violence, I presume?

Porn became abundant over last two decades and somehow people are having less sex than ever. There are many clues that those kinds of things work in the completely opposite way than you imagine.

I hate that it exists. I hate that there are people who are seeking this. But I also hate when people state confidently things that might be completely wrong and write laws accordingly.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#207

Post by [deleted] »

elestor wrote: post #195
vbezhenar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of criminalising hand-made pictures? I just don't understand it. I could understand the point of criminalising child porn photos, as producing these photos obviously requires violating other laws (actually not obviously, as you can dress adult actors to look like children, but whatever). But things that are obviously drawn without any involvement of real children, what's wrong with them? Just keep th…

I'd say it makes a lot of sense. It likely encourages pedophilia, meaning people that consume such things will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay. It's similar to the way that regular porn affects the brain. I understand where you're coming from, though and I get your point, but I feel if someone consumes a lot of media of a certain type, they begin to 'embody' that media. Just don't goon.

[deleted]

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#208

Post by brabel »

pfortuny wrote: post #185
delusional wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really connect what you're saying here. I understand that you think drawing loli (I imagine) shouldn't be classified as pedophelia, but what does the law say? Part of living in a society is compromise. I don't believe that certain stretches of road close to my home should have a 50kph speed limit, but when I get a ticket I also accept that I'm in the wrong. If you're of the opinion that drawing children havin…

The problem lies on the wide margin of interpretation those laws give the police. 50kph is a number. "Sexualized drawings of children" is certainly open to discussion.

I remember the scandal when an American Apparel ad depicted a young woman in a thong. People were outraged because she looked minor. In fact, she was 21 years old. I wonder if people think she shouldn’t get any jobs modeling lingerie just because she appears to be underage. To be clear, the ad had nothing to suggest underage girls, just a girl in a thong which I hope everyone agrees does not have any connection to being underage, quite the opposite.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#209

Post by Lutger »

pfortuny wrote: post #185
delusional wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really connect what you're saying here. I understand that you think drawing loli (I imagine) shouldn't be classified as pedophelia, but what does the law say? Part of living in a society is compromise. I don't believe that certain stretches of road close to my home should have a 50kph speed limit, but when I get a ticket I also accept that I'm in the wrong. If you're of the opinion that drawing children havin…

The problem lies on the wide margin of interpretation those laws give the police. 50kph is a number. "Sexualized drawings of children" is certainly open to discussion.

The problem as stated in the original comment isn't that child porn as drawings is forbidden, or even that the interpretation of such is ambiguous. Or to be precise, it is not the only problem. The argument made is that these laws do not exist for their apparent intent (safety of children), but only as an excuse to exercise otherwise unlawful oppression and suppression of freedoms.

I don't find this assertion very plausible honestly, especially if this would be an argument against the existence of these very laws, because its not really an argument against government backdoors and such.

You could make the same argument (of ambiguity) with almost any crime, because there are always cases where a crime is hard to prove completely without any risk of failure, especially in the realm of sexual assault.

I'm not taking a position here, honestly I'm unsure about it, but the reasoning is sloppy and the allegations of abuse seemingly pulled out of thin air. There is also no case for why the poster is being investigated other than the pornography. It would be more plausible if there was some kind of civil disobedience involved. As stated, I'm inclined to put this in the category conspiracy theory.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#210

Post by delusional »

pfortuny wrote: post #185
delusional wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really connect what you're saying here. I understand that you think drawing loli (I imagine) shouldn't be classified as pedophelia, but what does the law say? Part of living in a society is compromise. I don't believe that certain stretches of road close to my home should have a 50kph speed limit, but when I get a ticket I also accept that I'm in the wrong. If you're of the opinion that drawing children havin…

The problem lies on the wide margin of interpretation those laws give the police. 50kph is a number. "Sexualized drawings of children" is certainly open to discussion.

50kph is a number, but that number is (in my jurisdiction) determined by the police. The laws describe a number of things they must consider when making the decision, and for every one of those aspects, reasonable people can disagree.

Then there's the fact that such a number is nearly impossible to assess in messy reality, so we usually have a bit of leeway. Who is to say I was going 52 and not 49kph? Reasonable minds can disagree, but if we do, the judge gets the final say.

> "Sexualized drawings of children" is certainly open to discussion.

I think you'll find that discussion to be very short if you show "average" people the kinds of things that are posted online. It's like Megan Kelly arguing that Epstein wasn't really a pedophile because they were 15 and not 8. That argument might work in certain circles of the internet, but nobody outside of those circles find that distinction interesting.

Post reply on HN