Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. What makes you think Sudan (or NK, or Russia, or China) won't get their hands on this technology? 2. What makes you think every government in the entire EU will always have the people's best interests at heart? 3. What makes you think #2 is true even today? It seems like this technology could be very easy to abuse, to great public detriment. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
> 1. What makes you think Sudan (or NK, or Russia, or China) won't get their hands on this technology? their problem! they have more pressing issues already! and some of them have already implemented worse ways of surveilling their citizens. In this regards, even USA is far worse than EU! > 2. What makes you think every government in the entire EU will always have the people's best interests at heart? I don't, that's…
> Because I live in EU and everywhere else I look the situation is far worse.
"It's worse other places" doesn't answer the question. The EU's government isn't perfect and I don't see any safeguards in this proposal. It's ripe for abuse.
> Funny that guns are abused daily in US
Whataboutism nonsense, nobody is talking about guns except you.
> If the filter has to be used for CSAM content, it can't be used for anything else.
Utterly fanciful. Once this exists and is in place, it can and will be expanded to other things. Eventually a government you don't like will be elected in your country, and they'll be able to expand this.
This tool in the hands of an authoritarian government is as dangerous as any firearm because it would allow them to track dissent.