71–80 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
scanned locally or externally? that's what i care about
Don't buy into the framing. No scanning at all is what I care about.
If this is implemented as it reads, just a note to everyone else, everywhere in the world:
For this policy to work, everything must be scanned. So now, every time you communicate with someone in the UK, your communications are no longer private.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grok AI generating child pornography has been a leading news story in the British press for the past few days.
All images uploaded to twitter, or any other lawful American social media platform, are perceptually hashed and checked against databases of known CSAM. Computer generated pornography, while obviously odious, is not technically illegal in the US. And in either case, twitter has been a dumping ground of such crap for as long as it has existed. In short, with all due respect, get a grip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grok AI generating child pornography has been a leading news story in the British press for the past few days.
All images uploaded to twitter, or any other lawful American social media platform, are perceptually hashed and checked against databases of known CSAM. Computer generated pornography, while obviously odious, is not technically illegal in the US. And in either case, twitter has been a dumping ground of such crap for as long as it has existed. In short, with all due respect, get a grip.
All Musk actually needed to say was "oh fuck, we'll fix that". Instead, he responded with laughing emojiis and nothing's changed.
> is not technically illegal in the US
Bully for you.
X is operating in the UK and it *is* illegal here (and not just here). X can either comply with our laws (and the associated moral standards) or it can cease operating here.
There's weird nerd diving in front of Musk to defend him and then there's defending his AI generating CSAM. Neither's a good look, but one is much worse than the other
I understand the rage generated here, but what is the alternative? If a service implements privacy invading 'features' then we have the choice not to use that service. Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL. What are we to do if not monitor? And how to make that scalable if not to introduce autom…
> What are we to do if not monitor? Simple, you can choose to only use platforms that use the most stringent scanning technologies for you and your family. You give the UK government (or the equivalent that applies to you) the right to continuously scan everything from pictures to emails to messages and then obviously you give them the right to prosecute you and come after you when one of their AI algorithms mistaken…
That's not without its own issues though - creating external deps is more or less what they did the first time they tried to mandate age verification.
Although their plans fell through, they created an industry who'd expected a captive market and started lobbying heavily. Eventually, it worked and we've ended up with mandatory age verification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The uncomfortable truth: I know and have met plenty of women who have invited and welcomed dick pics. As a gay guy, I can tell you that lots of women are actually very interested in dick pics. They don't need a minister protecting them from themselves.
Come on, even knowing this, you have to admit there's probably a lot more unsolicited than solicited ones...
But they can be more judicious with whom they share contact details, and use the block button. They are not forced to be the recipient of any message.
Do you think the only solution is for a government backdoor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The things you mention are already illegal. The effective proven solution is to enforce existing laws, to punish and deter bad behaviour like any other crime. This incongruence is why a lot of people don't take the reasoning at face value and see it as only rhetorical justification for increased surveillance, which is widely understood as something the state wants do do anyway.
How do you deal with a crime that isn’t reported due to things like shame? Not to say that we need to scan messages to enforce nudes not to be sent, but I don’t think you can say “just enforce existing laws” and be done with it, it’s not that simple.
> The UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) unveiled the changes through a promotional video showing a smartphone scanning AirDropped photos and warning the user that an “unwanted nude” had been detected. "Unwanted"
> The UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) It should be called the Ministry of Truth at this point. > Unwanted How do you know if a nude is unwanted? The premise itself makes no sense. The only way this could potentially work is if you had the whole context of the relationship somehow embedded in the messages and then if you deciphered the intent behind the messages. Even then what about sarcas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't buy into the framing. No scanning at all is what I care about.
Don't buy into that framing either. Optional scanning - if a user wants to, they are free to download government spyware onto their phone/computer and do all the scanning they want, local or otherwise. No new laws needed.