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

EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 431 posts

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#381

Post by frickinLasers »

ajb wrote: post #341
lamontcg wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep posting this objection on every single one of these articles. It is weird how supposedly techno-savvy people can't spot how easy this would be. But I'd think it would look more like an alternative to murder-for-hire when ruining someone else's life and throwing them in jail would be sufficient. Get someone else to pay reasonably big money to actually do it and not just threaten it. This may have happened alrea…

Well yes, that's what I though 20 years ago. But I've never seen a report of actual framing of someone via CSAM. gung-ho police mistaking innocent nude kid pics, yes. Criminalisation of sexting by teenagers, yes. But framing? Haven't seen it reported. There are two reasons I guess. One is that pedophilia is the epitome of evil in our society and even career criminals would find handling CSAM off putting and risky. Th…

Here we go, two days ago:

https://kfor.com/news/local/wife-accomplice-screenshot-857-c...

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#382

Post by Tade0 »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #348
Tade0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather ban (too) dense cities. Nobody needs to live at a density of 10k+ people per square kilometre .

Uhm maybe we want to? Not everyone likes rural life. And people in cities use public transport a lot. I don't even own a car myself anymore and haven't driven one in years.

I'm starting to think I've used the wrong units in my comment.

10k people per square kilometre is over twice as dense as an average European city, or around the density of New York.

There's a lot of middle ground between that and rural life.

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#383

Post by Tade0 »

woah wrote: post #331
Tade0 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is efficiency for the sake of efficiency worth it though? There's a second order effect I observed which I feel isn't discussed enough: when it's assumed that you can only walk/cycle or perhaps take the bus in an area, suddenly there's an additional premium imposed on space. The net result is accelerated gentrification. Anecdata: just about anyone I know from my generation was priced out of those walkable districts w…

What a ridiculous take. Walkable districts are a good thing, and instead of building more, you want to ban them?

I said I want to ban density over a certain number. Or specifically: leave space for modes of personal transportation other than walking or cycling.

Such cities can still be walkable - I grew up in one so I should know.

But I also lived on the outskirts of a very dense (due to historic architecture) city and would never want to move any further inward, because that place was hell.

Bottom line is density is a bad target. Livability is a good one and density doesn't equal livability.

Actually, my whole point is that there exists a level of population density which is actually worse than detached housing.

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#384

Post by vetinari »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #361
vetinari wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it is most efficient, does not mean it is enjoyable or that the life in such a hive isn't missing some qualities.

If you don’t find it enjoyable you’re welcome to not move there. Why try to ban it for everyone else?

I might be already there. Why do you want to move in and spoil it for us, who are already there? Find some other place, where building human hives is more welcome.

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#385

Post by lamontcg »

ajb wrote: post #341
lamontcg wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep posting this objection on every single one of these articles. It is weird how supposedly techno-savvy people can't spot how easy this would be. But I'd think it would look more like an alternative to murder-for-hire when ruining someone else's life and throwing them in jail would be sufficient. Get someone else to pay reasonably big money to actually do it and not just threaten it. This may have happened alrea…

Well yes, that's what I though 20 years ago. But I've never seen a report of actual framing of someone via CSAM. gung-ho police mistaking innocent nude kid pics, yes. Criminalisation of sexting by teenagers, yes. But framing? Haven't seen it reported. There are two reasons I guess. One is that pedophilia is the epitome of evil in our society and even career criminals would find handling CSAM off putting and risky. Th…

Well some other people already posted that it has actually happened.

> There are two reasons I guess. One is that pedophilia is the epitome of evil in our society and even career criminals would find handling CSAM off putting and risky.

Every time I see this argument I find it hopelessly naive.

If I was sitting on a few million in cocaine or heroin I'd be sweating bullets, but other people deal in more than that all the time.

There are people out there willing to do murder for hire, which seems like total insanity to me (huge legal risks and you have to get up close and messy and be actually willing to kill someone). Yet sociopaths out there look at their skill set and decide the fact that they're completely okay with killing people is a profitable skill they can market. Sitting on a pile of CSAM and hacking into phones to frame other people seems relatively tame by comparison, and certainly prone to attracting people who are overly-smart technically and have the weakness that they think they're so smart they'll never get caught. Far from seeming implausible, it seems highly plausible.

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#386

Post by samatman »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #313
School-Cotton wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've studied English, not American. Regardless, if debating in good faith you should respond to what people clearly mean, not to what you feel the words they’re using should mean in “correct” English. > Or 67 cabinets, if you prefer. Absolutely nobody is disputing this. The Wikipedia link is unnecessary.

> Regardless, if debating in good faith you should respond to what people clearly mean, not to what you feel the words they’re using should mean in “correct” English. you're wrong: I never said I was using the correct English, I said that in the English that I have studied it is called a government. It's called government here too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Italy#Executive_... I'm not making up words…

Here's the full quote:

> You have definitely not had 67 different governments since 1946 in the sense that I think was meant.

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#387

Post by op00to »

insta_anon wrote: post #347
tluyben2 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won’t happen here but sure, US type of police overreach makes a better soundbite with horribly vague proposals like this. And people should be scared so I guess it’s good; maybe they will protest (probably not though because the children the children).

I accidentally (e.g. I didn't know) bought a stolen laptop some time ago. The police came at 05:00am, raided my home with guns drawn and took the laptop. So yes, it does happen in Europe as well.

yikes! Hope you and your family are ok!

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#388

Post by gigel82 »

Mizza wrote: post #172

Isn't this an insanely stupid idea? Doesn't it open the door to a new type of ransomware - pay up, or we'll flood your devices with CSAM and submit a tip about it?

Hey, that's an idea... we know who the sponsors for this are in the European Commission; maybe Anon or someone could take a stab at uploading something special to their devices.

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#389

Post by therein »

crmd wrote: post #197
zosima wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, as this is not about child sex abuse anyway. The legislators know, from experience, that it's hard to argue against measures to protect children from predators, and so they are free to launch controversial and unacceptable measures. Once in place, it will be extended to other purposes. The same as always.

Quoting Adam Curtis from The Power of Nighmares: > In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new rol…

I didn't put much emphasis on the first line of your comment and skipped to the paragraph right away, yet still read that paragraph with Adam Curtis' voice in my head.

Granted I watched all his documentaries...

Re: EU Commission is planning automatic CSAM scanning of private communications

#390

Post by pbhjpbhj »

shakna wrote: post #225
stef25 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in the US. Meanwhile France last year just dropped the age of consent to 15 and if you check Wikipedia you'll most EU countries have it set around the same age. It's doubtful you could even find a single case someone being prosecuted because their actual underage boy / girlfriend sent them an explicit picture.

> Meanwhile France last year just dropped the age of consent to 15 and if you check Wikipedia you'll most EU countries have it set around the same age. France's age of consent has been 15, since 1945 (1982, if you weren't straight). What they did last year was add a Romeo & Juliet clause that allows for below that age if you're within five years of your partner and not committing something that would otherwise be con…

15 vs 12 is huge gap in relative age, development, and maturity. But it sounds worse from your description, like a 15yo can have sex with a 10yo and it's considered consensual??
Post reply on HN