511–520 of 713 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TikTok is run by a US-based subsidiary of ByteDance They have insisted “that TikTok U.S. user data is stored in Virginia, with a back-up in Singapore and strict controls on employee access.” https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/tiktok-launches-a-new-info...
China's state security laws trump all "strict controls" for employees.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One winning move would be to take the problem seriously What makes you think that the problem is not taken seriously? I am no specialist, but it looks like cases are investigated and people are going to jail. You say that it is not the case, so I am curious what leads you to this statement. Yes, policies can be based on fears and opinion, but some numbers and rationality usually help make better decisions. I'd love…
> Yes, policies can be based on fears and opinion, but some numbers and rationality usually help make better decisions. Sure, but you aren’t the decision maker. This is a political decision, and so will be based on the balance of fears and forces at play, not a rational analysis. It doesn’t matter how right or rational you are. It only matters how many people think you understand what they care about. If the Hacker p…
That is only partially true. If we both write, other people may read, then you and me possibly influence people. Wa are social beings, we are influenced by people around us. So we're both a tiny part of the decision process. And you talk about political decision: politicians keep listening to people through polls, phone calls received, and other ways. Even dictators can be, when numbers are high enough.
So it does matter how rational we are. Over time and on average, people are more often convinced by rational discourse than irrationality. Probably because rationality has a higher likelihood of being right. But yes, we'll go through periods where irrationality wins... Still, it's very hard to be on the opposite side of logic and facts for a long time.
>If the Hacker position is "people shouldn’t care about child pornography"
I have not read that here. If you believe that child pornography is a massive issue, I respect that. I just would have hoped you could better describe the actual size of the problem and its evolution. You could have influenced me more effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes it’s only icloud photos for now. what’s going to be next? are you going to have a huge scandal every time they turn on a new “feature”?
Its interesting that its only brought up when Apple does it. Google, MS, Dropbox, etc gets a pass..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal opinion is if we could spy on all citizens all the time we could stop all or most of the crimes, do we want this? If you say Yes then stop reading here. Else if you say 100% surveillance is too much then what do you have against people discussing where the line should be drawn? Some person that would sign that letter might be fine with video cameras in say a bank or some company building entrance but he i…
This only finds known pictures of child abuse not new ones and especially it doesn't find the perpetrators or prevent the abuse. But it creates a infrastructure for all other kind of "criminal" data. I bet sooner or later governments want to include other hashes to find the owners of specific files. Could be bomb creation manuals, could be flyers against a corrupt regime. The sky is the limit and the road to hell is…
No, it finds images that have similar perceptual hashes, typically using the hamming distance or another metric to calculate differences between hashes.
I've built products that do similar things. False positives are abound with perceptual hashes, especially when you start fuzzy matching them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“This almost certainly will be abused.” is a claim by you and completely unverifiable. Apple has published white papers explaining how their hashing, matching, and cryptography work. How do you see someone thwarting that process specifically?
Apple's claims on how it will work are also completely unverifiable. What's stopping a government from providing Apple with hashes of any other sort of content they dislike?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you going to argue that it’s bad for parents to be informed when strangers send sexual imagery to their children?
You argue the applications of the technology further down the line. Remind them how facebook's safety features turned into tools for censorship.
I remind you that people made that argument about Facebook and it didn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the US, it looks like the number of child pornography cases is going down each year Prosecuting fewer cases doesn't mean less abuse is occurring. It doesn't even mean that the number of instances of abuse for which cases are prosecuted are going down, just that the number of offenders prosecuted is going down.
Agree. It may well be a bad proxy. But it does not mean the problem is getting worse either, one would need to back it up with some arguments/estimates. The number of pictures on the internet does not seems a good one to me (cats population has not grown that big). I am thinking that people don't seem to know if the problem is really getting bigger. They just say it. If we don't know that, we cannot use growing child…
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators
The FBI says it. People can and do use that argument whether we like it or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, policies can be based on fears and opinion, but some numbers and rationality usually help make better decisions. Sure, but you aren’t the decision maker. This is a political decision, and so will be based on the balance of fears and forces at play, not a rational analysis. It doesn’t matter how right or rational you are. It only matters how many people think you understand what they care about. If the Hacker p…
>you aren’t the decision maker. That is only partially true. If we both write, other people may read, then you and me possibly influence people. Wa are social beings, we are influenced by people around us. So we're both a tiny part of the decision process. And you talk about political decision: politicians keep listening to people through polls, phone calls received, and other ways. Even dictators can be, when number…
I don’t mind whether you are convinced. I’m not trying to convince you about the size of the problem.
My position isn’t about how large the threat is. I don’t have any information that you don’t have access to. My position is that if we care about privacy we have to accept that people other than ourselves think the problem is big enough to warrant these measures.
You have already lost this battle because enough people are convinced about the problem that tech companies are already doing what you don’t want them to do.