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

Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

threema.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 341 posts

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#261

Post by nobutterbetter »

hoseja wrote: post #93
gravescale wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet made-up theory is that careers aren't really killable like that any more, since Cambridge Analytica. Before CA, the received wisdom was that if you do something bad, you will need to resign before you are pushed for causing damage to the organisation reputation and therefore electability. This was perhaps borne out with enormous error bars by focus groups and polls asking "would you still vote for X in case of…

We have to make the more traditional methods popular again.

[dead]

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#262

Post by raxxorraxor »

lm28469 wrote: post #73
neugiergiraffe wrote: post #58

Can someone explain to me why, over time, democratic states tend to drift into mass surveillance ? Is it beacuse a lot of people feel unsafe or is it because the people supposed to ensure our security see it as the "easiest" or most effective way to do their job? Is there so much benefit to having a fuctioning mass surveilance apparatus, and if yes, who benefits of it if not the people for whom these rules for in the…

> democratic states Democracy is a spectrum and it comes in many flavors. For example nobody voted for von der Leyen, the French voted against the EU referendum in 2005 but the government still went with it, there hasn't been any referendum in France since

Which are examples of democratic deficiencies that might be indicative of the EU not being particularly democratic.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#263

Post by raxxorraxor »

infecto wrote: post #251
intunderflow wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar reason why there's no death penalty. If you get the wrong person and you lock them up you can release them with compensation, it won't fix it but its better. You can't un-castrate someone the same way you can't revive them after an execution. Courts convict innocent people all the time, hence no irreversible punishments.

Ok but after two strikes? If you have gotten into trouble twice, I don’t have much concern. Life is not fair sometimes. Happy to see if there are better ways to treat abusers that improve recidivism but I am not convinced prison time works. There is something deeply wrong with people who not only have the desires but are willing to act on them knowing it will hurt their victims.

The threat level doesn't make your proposal a necessity and I believe it is founded in the same irrational fears that this policy suggestion plays on.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#264

Post by gravescale »

roenxi wrote: post #245
gravescale wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet made-up theory is that careers aren't really killable like that any more, since Cambridge Analytica. Before CA, the received wisdom was that if you do something bad, you will need to resign before you are pushed for causing damage to the organisation reputation and therefore electability. This was perhaps borne out with enormous error bars by focus groups and polls asking "would you still vote for X in case of…

There was a disjunction around the late 90s/early 2000s when the internet got big. That was around the time that the corporate news sources started losing control of the news to more citizen reporter types running podcasts or whatever gets big on social media. What gets called "the narrative" split from being the consensus of journalists to a cacophony of random people who don't form consensuses. Before that change,…

I don't know, I think there was definitely a turn around the mid 2010s when actions and consequences really started to diverge.

And to be clear, I don't mean that the exposure of CA was the cause, I mean that what CA and their ilk was delivering to their customers - detailed, real time, granular analysis of the reactions to actions.

Some time a bit before the public CA exposure would have been when analysts looking at the data delivered by CA would have first realised just how little what would until then have been "scandal" actually moved the needle of their supporters, without having to infer from slow and inaccurate techniques like polling and focus groups.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#265

Post by raxxorraxor »

infecto wrote: post #253
amelius wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we don't live in the middle ages and have human right laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

Such a dismissing statement without any meat. Happy if other alternatives are explored but I have not heard of any that significantly improve the recidivism rate.

We explored the possibility for these kinds of punishments aplenty. It is fairly established that higher punishments don't necessarily reduce crime or recidivism.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#266

Post by cdmoyer »

darby_nine wrote: post #3

I find it somewhat disturbing that this sort of thing is not considered a career killer for politicians.

I mean, if you asked many people "is it ok if the government can read some of your chat messages in exchange for catching a bunch of child pornographers," this will be a very popular "yes" vote. People are generally very willing to trade some rights and freedoms for safety. Or don't realize the trade-off they're making.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#268

Post by ranguna »

tzs wrote: post #168
wepple wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime, whether CSAM or drugs or theft, all have a component in the real-world: it’s never purely in messaging. Stop the CSAM where it’s being created. Catch the drug manufacturers and distributors. Etc. do police work.

What kind of police work are you envisaging?

The one being done right now without this law

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#269

Post by NoGravitas »

cauch wrote: post #141
romankolpak wrote: post #105

I’m sorry if this is a stupid question, but I want to ask it because I see the same sentiment across HN and other forums and I’m legitimately confused. If we don’t hijack privacy in messaging, how do we fight crime happening on a message platform? If government doesn’t have access to message contents, what’s stopping criminals from using the platform and never get tracked down? Or proven guilty, since all the proof i…

I'm seeing more value in your comment than, apparently, the other people who have answered it here. I think you are 100% right that above-the-law communication is not good for society. This should be obvious. At the same time, allowing government to be able to spy everywhere is also not good for society. Also obvious. The correct solution is therefore something in the middle. I'm not convinced by the other arguments…

> I think you are 100% right that above-the-law communication is not good for society. This should be obvious. At the same time, allowing government to be able to spy everywhere is also not good for society. Also obvious. The correct solution is therefore something in the middle.

The correct solution should be something in the middle. Old-fashioned wiretapping, with a warrant and the need to dedicate staff to installing and monitoring the tap is basically okay. The problem is that the mathematics of cryptography and the scaling inherent to information technology mean that only all-or-nothing solutions are possible. If the cryptography is intentionally broken, it's broken not just for law enforcement, it's broken for everyone. If law enforcement has a backdoor they can use with a warrant, they're capable of using it without a warrant, and probably will. And if their special keys get leaked, then again, the encryption is broken for everyone.

Like you point out, secret sharing is one way of getting around this in principle. But governments would never make their access dependent on an NGO; in practice I'm sure they'd only agree to secret sharing schemes where the separate parties were separated only by nominal bureaucratic firewalls, and then you're back to the original problem.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#270

Post by latexr »

cauch wrote: post #249
latexr wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument to moderation fallacy is when you are saying that the good answer is good because it is in the middle. I don't do that, I find the good answer and I just state that it happens to be in the middle. If that’s your position you should remove the word “therefore” from your final sentence. Because that word means that the conclusion was drawn from the previous statements. > if indeed you cannot trust no-one…

> If that’s your position you should remove the word “therefore” from your final sentence. Because that word means that the conclusion was drawn from the previous statements. What if I would have said "the solution on the left is obviously bad, the solution on the middle is obviously bad, therefore the solution is on the right"? That would obviously not be a argument to moderation fallacy, and yet the logic behind th…

I’ll be honest, I didn’t read most of that last message yet. No disrespect meant, I’m just tired and don’t think continuing will be a healthy use of time. For either of us.

> You realise that in this discussion, all you have done is to attack SOMEONE FROM YOUR SIDE, with the argument that they should not use their brain and try to find solution.

I did read this part, as the all caps caught my attention. I did not attack you. Disagreeing with parts of your argument in no way reflects on you. Still, my words have seemingly affected you negatively and for that I apologise as it was not my intention. I wish you a genuinely pleasant week.

Post reply on HN