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

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#321

Post by zmmmmm »

joe_mamba wrote: post #255
tjpnz wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google have already caused significant hardship to a father for such kinds of photos. What's particularly galling is how they've continued to maintain they were in the right, despite the police saying no crime had been committed. https://www.koffellaw.com/blog/google-ai-technology-flags-da...

Of course google and every other big-tech platform is gonna insta-wipe every account containing detected nudes of children, regardless if you're the parent. The corporate liability of such content being found on their cloud is so insanely nuclear, that they're not gonna wait and ask you "hey are those nudes your own kids or are you a pedo?" before they wipe the account with all pics off their servers.

And yet the will badger you endlessly to the point their photos app is near unusable to turn on auto sync which slurps up every photo and makes it very awkward to then delete them after. To me, this makes Google a liable party even if real CSAM is stored.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#322

Post by vrganj »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #313
vrganj wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hiding your power levels" is a key strategy of the neofascist right. Make yourself look reasonable until you have enough power to do the despicable. This explains why they are publicly denying what they are plotting in private. Here's some choice quotes, translated to English. "We must proceed completely peacefully and deliberately, adapt if necessary and butter up the opponent [literally: smear honey on their mouth…

Based on the political extremes in the US I had figured AfD would have its share of somewhat unsavory characters but this is almost comical. Are you sure the germans haven't confused meeting minutes and disney scripts? (I say, but then look at who we managed to elect.)

Yeah, as bad as unsavory characters in the US are, the AfD is full of straight-up, unrepetent Neonazis.

Like this is not just me mischaracterizing my political opponents, it is the most accurate label based on their behavior. They're the type of people who want to make the 1930s happen again in Germany.

This is why I react somewhat strongly when people try to relativize their abhorrence and make excuses, most frequently out of incorrectly mapping their own country's political systems.

I hope I could convince you that - especially given Germany's past and its commitment to never let this happen again - banning them is not some sort of political repression, but an immune response from democracy under attack. It is a manifestation of defensive democracy [0] , the principle written into the German constitution after the horrors of fascism.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy#Germany

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#323

Post by belorn »

pembrook wrote: post #115
pqtyw wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?

I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowin…

The distinction is very much blurred, and there is much more profitable way to use data than getting people to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

Companies can use it to determine voting patters and sell that to interested political parties. Government are made from political parties and can steer money to those parties, thus the data can now be sold indirectly to the government.

Companies can use it to indirectly target competitors through their customers. Creating a monopoly is much more profitable than just selling more products. Gaining favors with political parties in the above strategy can also help here.

Companies can sell data to governments of other countries. Just because your own government has laws that forbids it, it doesn't mean other countries has the same laws or will treat the citizens of your country as their own. Trade like this can also occur in multiple steps. Company sell data to country A, and country A shares/sells it to your own government. Your own government might finds this preferable to buy it directly as laws may not apply to data shared/bought, even if that data is about their own citizens.

Selling personal data to the government is profitable, but there are also other interested parties. People in legal disputes may want information about the other side, or the juries, or even the judge. Companies that want to do industry espionage would want to buy information about other companies employees. Criminal organizations very much like to buy information about vulnerable people like the elderly. Again, the data doesn't need to be sold directly but can go through many hands until it finally reach the most scummy buyers, and the money will slowly trickle upwards to the seller.

As long as someone collects the data and is willing to sell it to someone, sooner or later it will be sold/leaked to someone who shouldn't have it. That is the fundamental issue with companies collecting personal information.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#324

Post by ComposedPattern »

earth-tattoo wrote: post #153
inigyou wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.

[flagged]

The overwhelming majority of countries around the world have processes for naturalization [1]. They are often fairly onerous, but that is true of many European countries as well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization#Summary_by_coun...

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#325

Post by pqtyw »

pembrook wrote: post #315
like_any_other wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. And to steal tips [1], lower your salary [2,3], charge you more [3,4], and limit how you may use "your" property [5]. I'm sure there are many I've missed. Oh and how could I forget - to smear you if you stand in their way [6]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_a... (try doing that when tips…

Oh the horror, they might try to lower your salary forcing you to find another competing employer! Meanwhile governments wield enough power to destroy the entire world 100X over, and are currently shoveling young boys into the meat grinder of war to be slaughtered by the thousands every day. As a left-leaning forum, HN has a giant blind spot re: government power vs. corporate power. I'm trying to point this out. Yes,…

> As a left-leaning forum

Even if true it's almost entirely orthogonal.

The "right" is usually only against government control, intervention and surveillance until they get into power. Then they double down on them. Also right wing parties/groups are generally better at controlling and silencing internal opposition (since they are lot better shutting up and falling in line when push comes to shove regardless of their personal beliefs). So they are usually a lot more effective at imposing these things.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#326

Post by zmmmmm »

73738384 wrote: post #42
rpadovani wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody in EU is saying the EU should clean up others' mess around the world That's literally what the top poster said. Your points make sense, "EU should reopen Hormuz" is laughable

Either the EU opens Hormuz or the EU pays twice the pre war rate for gas / oil indefinitely. Of course at least they can put the subjects that bitch about it in jail now.

Like a lot of the rest of the world they would probably rather take the alternative option and accelerate the transition to clean energy. Has the upside of not handing more power to an authoritarian state on the other side of the Atlantic that clearly hates them and routinely threatens them.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#328

Post by nicce »

ribosometronome wrote: post #161
alethic wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is of course a massive privacy violation, since the code that scans for CSAM can be switched out to scan for anything else at any time. (It's even easier to do now than when Apple first proposed it, as language models since have gotten good at reading images.)

Apple was already doing image recognition on device for photo searchability when they proposed that solution.

But that did not really carry data out from the device, other than hashes. I think Apply knew this was coming, and tried to do it better.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#330

Post by mattstir »

AuthAuth wrote: post #121

When it comes to online actions people ask for way more than reasonable. You dont get to be an invisible, impossible to track, unaccountable hacker man free to roam the internet on equal footing to the rest of the users.

Who's arguing for that? And why is it not "reasonable" to ask for basic privacy?
Post reply on HN