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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#251

Post by Humorist2290 »

tomsmeding wrote: post #216

> According to Breyer, the existing voluntary system has already proven flawed, with German police reporting that roughly half of all flagged cases turn out to be irrelevant. A failure rate of only 50% is absurdly good for a system like this. If we have to: > Imagine your phone scanning every conversation with your partner, your daughter, your therapist, and leaking it just because the word ‘love’ or ‘meet’ appears s…

It is probably a reference to the report mentioned in this article from September https://reclaimthenet.org/germany-chat-control-false-reports...

  According to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), 99,375 of the 205,728 reports forwarded by the US-based National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) were not criminally relevant, an error rate of 48.3%. This is a rise from 2023, when the number of false positives already stood at 90,950.
Indeed 50% false positive rate sounds surprisingly good, but this is under the "voluntary scheme" where Meta/Google/MS etc are not obligated to report. Notably missing from the article is the total number of scanned messages to get down to 200k reports. To my knowledge, since it's voluntary, they can also report only the very highest confidence detections. If the Danish regime were to impose reporting quotas the total number of reports would rise. And of course -- these are reports, not actually convictions.

Presumably the actual number of criminals caught by this would remain constant, so the FP rate would increase. Unless of course, the definition of criminal expands to keep the FP rate low...

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#252

Post by squigz »

andix wrote: post #243

Will it possible to "DDoS" those systems? It can't be illegal to role-play a grooming situation between consenting adults in a private conversation. If millions of people do that, they must be buried in reports.

If you can coordinate millions of people to do... that, couldn't you coordinate them to do something arguably more productive, like voting against politicians/parties that try to enact this stuff?

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#253

Post by andix »

squigz wrote: post #252
andix wrote: post #243

Will it possible to "DDoS" those systems? It can't be illegal to role-play a grooming situation between consenting adults in a private conversation. If millions of people do that, they must be buried in reports.

If you can coordinate millions of people to do... that, couldn't you coordinate them to do something arguably more productive, like voting against politicians/parties that try to enact this stuff?

There are millions of people voting against that stuff. But it would require hundreds of millions to stop it.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#254

Post by [deleted] »

tomsmeding wrote: post #216

> According to Breyer, the existing voluntary system has already proven flawed, with German police reporting that roughly half of all flagged cases turn out to be irrelevant. A failure rate of only 50% is absurdly good for a system like this. If we have to: > Imagine your phone scanning every conversation with your partner, your daughter, your therapist, and leaking it just because the word ‘love’ or ‘meet’ appears s…

[deleted]

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#255

Post by anonym29 »

tomsmeding wrote: post #216

> According to Breyer, the existing voluntary system has already proven flawed, with German police reporting that roughly half of all flagged cases turn out to be irrelevant. A failure rate of only 50% is absurdly good for a system like this. If we have to: > Imagine your phone scanning every conversation with your partner, your daughter, your therapist, and leaking it just because the word ‘love’ or ‘meet’ appears s…

[flagged]

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#256

Post by JumpCrisscross »

squigz wrote: post #250
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once a state decides ubiquitous surveillance is necessary, it’ll find or fabricate a justification This is defeatist, fatalist nonsense.

How?

It’s had to return. “Disguised.”

It was defeated once. It can be again. What might change that is lazy nihilism masquerading as wisdom.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#257

Post by squigz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #256
squigz wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?

It’s had to return. “Disguised.” It was defeated once. It can be again. What might change that is lazy nihilism masquerading as wisdom.

I really don't see how GP's comment is lazy nihilism. There's plenty of that in this thread, but I felt GP made good points.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#258

Post by JumpCrisscross »

squigz wrote: post #257
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s had to return. “Disguised.” It was defeated once. It can be again. What might change that is lazy nihilism masquerading as wisdom.

I really don't see how GP's comment is lazy nihilism. There's plenty of that in this thread, but I felt GP made good points.

> don't see how GP's comment is lazy

It’s arguing why something that just happened is impossible. It’s justifying not doing anything because doing anything is pointless. Nihilism justifying laziness.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#259

Post by tock »

criley2 wrote: post #115
tock wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice Is this true? Lots of countries with high living standards have high taxes. It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence. > What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars? 1B = 1000M. I think thats high enough. Don't see why you need to make it 1000x smaller t…

Taxes are ~irrelevant to billionaires. When you say "you can't be a billionaire" what you're saying is "you cannot own any significant amount of a large business" because billionaires aren't liquid, their status is based on their assets and primarily their shares in large businesses. I agree that wealth inequality is horrible and taxes on the wealthy should be much higher. But if someone owns 10% of a trillion dollar…

> So what do you do?

We should be discussing strategies to tackle this. Not just go "oh lets just accept it".

Just how many people have 100B+? Do you see them trying to interfere in governance and elections? Maybe we can have annual wealth taxes. Just like property taxes. There are many ways to tackle this. That's what we should be discussing. Not just giving up. Absurd wealth inequality will cause societal collapse.

> This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production).

No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the west a communist region? Communism is the govt "owning" a company. Some rich guy selling his shares on the stock market to pay his taxes doesn't mean the govt owns the company.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#260

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

klabb3 wrote: post #137

This can backfire bigly for the EU. The whole union is sustained on shared values and interests. Sneaking in surveillance is extremely offputting for the sentiment towards EU in many circles. Every member state has plenty of skeptics who want to brexit and this is gasoline for them. And rightly so. This isn’t a fluke from some misinformed non-technical stray politician who ”wants to save the children” (yes, they exis…

After Brexit no one's ever leaving the EU
Post reply on HN