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

One Bad Apple

hackerfactor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 557 posts

Re: One Bad Apple

#421

Post by FeepingCreature »

hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #7

NCMEC has essentially shows that they have zero regard for privacy and called all privacy activists "screeching voices of the minority". At the same time, they're at the center point of a highly opaque, entrenched (often legally mandated) censorhip infrastructure that can and will get accounts shut down irrecoverably and possibly people's homes raided, on questionable data: In one of the previous discussions, I've se…

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper. I'm the author. I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-f…

> About this time, someone usually mocks "it's always about the kids, think about the kids." To those critics: They have not seen the scope of this problem or the long term impact. There is nearly a 1-to-1 relationship between people who deal in CP and people who abuse children. And they rarely victimize just one child. Nearly 1 in 10 children in the US will be sexually abused before the age of 18.

Maybe it's the fact that I don't have kids, or that I spend most of my life online with various devices and services. But I would much rather drop the NCMEC, drop any requirement to monitor private messages or photos, reinstate strong privacy guarantees, and instead massively step up monitoring requirements for families. This argument seems like we're using CSAM as a crutch to get at child abusers. If the relationship is really nearly 1:1, it seems more efficient to more closely monitor the groups most likely to be abusers instead.

It even seems to me that going after a database of existing CSAM is counterproductive. With that material, the damage is already done. In a perverse sense, we want as many pedos as possible to buy old CSAM, since this reduces the market for new abuse. It seems to me that initiatives like this do the opposite.

I am not defending CSAM here. But CSAM and child abuse are connected problems, and istm child abuse is the immensely greater one. We should confront child abuse as the first priority, even at the expense of CSAM enforcement, even at the expense of familial privacy. With a rate of 1 in 10, I don't see how not doing so can be ethically defended.

Re: One Bad Apple

#422

Post by FeepingCreature »

edmundsauto wrote: post #292
Teever wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would this system by Apple make my life worse? Can you answer that without a slippery slope argument? “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we're all damaged...."

This is melodramatic high school Hamlet-ism. It’s also silly - there has obviously been a case where the first speech was censured. It happened before civilizations. Are we all still damaged and bondaged by that? Look, speech is important. So is protecting the public good. But if one believes in absolutes, rather than takeoffs, they are IMO getting too high on their own supply. Let’s talk about the trade offs that we…

> This is melodramatic high school Hamlet-ism. It’s also silly - there has obviously been a case where the first speech was censured. It happened before civilizations. Are we all still damaged and bondaged by that?

Frankly, yes.

Re: One Bad Apple

#423

Post by computerfriend »

slg wrote: post #375
abecedarius wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plausible story of how our rights are in the way is always ready to hand. If we can't at some point draw a clear line and say no, that's it, stop -- then we have no rights. It's chisel, chisel, chisel, year after year, decade after decade. In America one of those lines is that your personal papers are private. Get a warrant. I don't have to justify this stand. I might choose to explain why it's a good stand, or I m…

>In America one of those lines is that your personal papers are private. Get a warrant. I don't have to justify this stand. I might choose to explain why it's a good stand, or I might not; it's on you to persuade us. Part of the problem is that these devices are encrypted so a warrant doesn't work on them. That is a big enough change that maybe people need to debate if the line is still in the right place.

My memories and thoughts are also warrant-proof. We just accept it as a limitation.

Re: One Bad Apple

#424

Post by kfprt »

hef19898 wrote: post #419
kfprt wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International fraud is a really interesting problem. I've proposed a mandatory international money transfer insurance that would pay out in case of court decided fraud. It would make doing business with corrupt countries that look the other way on fraud within their borders crack down to preserve their international market access.

I have hands on experience with, what I'd call at least attempted fraud, with crypto. Back when Sweden thought about state backed crypto, a lot of ads showed up where you could invest in that. I almost did, call centers used Austrian numbers. Not sure if there was even any coin behind that. I reported it to police, got a letter after a couple of months that the investigation led nowhere and was dropped, apparently Au…

There's a lot of dumb fraud. Being international of course makes everything harder. Usually the amount of investigation is related to how many people were scammed. People need to learn how to do due diligence because the definition of fraud can get vague at times. I think your example is a good case of due diligence, it couldn't hurt to blog about their fraud though.

Re: One Bad Apple

#425

Post by cryptonym »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #369
dijit wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys are so dismissive. How dare you look down on some random person without even taking 10 seconds to look it up. https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/17327294.cctv-c... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-22792013 Anecdotally my Mum works for Coventry City Council (though she is in events planning) but has noted complaints from colleagues about “busy work” from “fussy old people who keep asking…

One or two news reports of local councils maybe using CCTV, doesn’t back up your claim. The UK doesn’t have a super camera system used for minor crimes like you insinuate. The high camera counts in the UK come from including private CCTV cameras in the data which privately owned and are not linked together, hence the government is not using a network of cameras to monitor dog poo clean up as you claim.

Don't know about UK but in France they are now using CCTV to fine not well parked delivery guys for a 2 minutes stop. While I agree vehicle parked anywhere can be a big inconvenience and deserve a fine, I don't think that's a big crime justifying deployment of such a surveillance system.

This totally makes sense, having one cop checking 100+ CCTV is far more efficient than a full team walking in the streets. Once you justified the cost on privacy and managed to deploy such system, it's so easy and convenient to use it for something else.

Re: One Bad Apple

#426

Post by hutzlibu »

throwaway210222 wrote: post #377
ace_of_spades wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! This is a really important observation about anything controversial „child“ related. Be it abortion or abuse you can tell what people‘s real priorities are by looking at how much they are willing to spend on the welfare of kids outside their immediate point of concern. All of these types of problems are likely better solved in some other ways. Why not have general mental health coaching in schools freely a…

> Be it abortion or abuse you can tell what people‘s real priorities are. There is also (almost always) an unhealthy matching support for an enormous military with nuclear weapons whose sole purpose - when push comes to shove - is to indiscriminately murder the same babies once they have grown up. Its a symptom of a deeper mental pathology.

The thing with war is, and especially with nuclear weapons - it does not wait for the babies to be grown up. It might have gotten more precise to avoid direct hits of babies as they make for bad PR, but that still happens a lot and mothers with their babies on the run in a burning city is not much better either.

Re: One Bad Apple

#427

Post by weinzierl »

mschuster91 wrote: post #403
weinzierl wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the write-up and putting all the work into this important issue. > "There is nearly a 1-to-1 relationship between people who deal in CP and people who abuse children. And they rarely victimize just one child. Nearly 1 in 10 children in the US will be sexually abused before the age of 18." One thing I wondered and have not seen brought up in the discussion so far is this: As far as I understand the perceptu…

> doesn't that increase the pressure on the abusers to produce new content and in consequence hurt even more children? Not really. Two points: 1) Many / all CP boards these days ask applicants to provide CSAM (as police in almost all jurisdictions except for IIRC US and Australia are banned from bringing CSAM into circulation). And to keep police where allowed from simply re-uploading stuff, they (as well as the "cli…

Thanks, that was very insightful.

Re: One Bad Apple

#428

Post by perryizgr8 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #169
perryizgr8 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main problem is that Apple has backdoored my device. Isn't that the shtick with Apple though? That they own the devices you rent and you don't have to worry too much about it. They always had the backdoor in place, they used it for software updates. Now they will also use it for another thing.

> That they own the devices you rent and you don't have to worry too much about it. You didn't need to worry about it because they did a sufficiently good job at making the choices for you. This is a sign that they stopped doing so. An appropriate metaphor might be a secretary. They can handle a lot of busy work for you so you don't have to worry about it, but they need access to your calendar, mails etc. to do so. T…

I agree. I am just saying that Apple has always had massive backdoors in place. People were always pointing it out as a huge plus for iDevices. So no, the parent's main problem is not the backdoor. Otherwise they would have complained long ago.

Re: One Bad Apple

#429

Post by hutzlibu »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #421
hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper. I'm the author. I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-f…

> About this time, someone usually mocks "it's always about the kids, think about the kids." To those critics: They have not seen the scope of this problem or the long term impact. There is nearly a 1-to-1 relationship between people who deal in CP and people who abuse children. And they rarely victimize just one child. Nearly 1 in 10 children in the US will be sexually abused before the age of 18. Maybe it's the fac…

"and instead massively step up monitoring requirements for families"

Pls have a family first and then see if you ask for more state governence into your life?

It is true, most abuse happens in the family, but there is also schools, churches, sports clubs, ...

But the thing is, if the schools for example would have the stuff, with enough time (and empathy) to care about the actual children and talk with them and interact with them (and not mainly the paperwork about them) - then you could easily spot abuse everywhere and take action.

But they usually don't, so you have traumatized children coming into another hostile and cold environment called public school, where they just stonewall again and learn to hide their wounds and scars.

Child abuse is a complex problem, with no simple solution. But I prefer a more human focused solution amd not just another surveillance stepup.

Child abuseres also do not fall from the sky. If you pay more attention to them while they are young - you can spot it and help them, while they need help, before they turn into creepy monsters.

Re: One Bad Apple

#430

Post by SXX »

eecc wrote: post #346
hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper. I'm the author. I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-f…

How feasible is it to change the algorithm to flag police uniforms? The Tank Man?

No need to change anything. It's supported by design.
Post reply on HN