3 ms·

It bothers me that any alleged expert can say with a straight face that it's ok because the pictures are deleted and people are trained. If your system relies o

It bothers me that any alleged expert can say with a straight face that it's ok because the pictures are deleted and people are trained. If your system relies on data being deleted and people not abusing the system, then it is going to fail. It's only a question of how often. Like the old rule about guns that you should only point them at things you intend to shoot, you should only gather data you intend to keep forever, because more than data wants to be free, data wants to be immortal.

ErrantX 17y ago
The only thing I really take issue with is the Child Porn smoke screen that is constantly used; it's a none issue compared to the general issue with these devices. It's like with web filtering: CP is used as an excuse to get people onside. Case in point: this article uses "girl" even though the person in question is 29 - a Woman. It by no means makes the situation any better (clearly), but it allows the Sun to segue into the pedophile aspect nicely.... bah
- pmichaud 17y ago
  Yeah but you have to understand that the general public doesn't use facts and logic to form conclusions. They use social queues, and they need road signs--tribal banners, if you want--to know which side they should be on. We at HN are (generally) on the side for whom "child porn" is a rallying cry, and no one outside of our little bubble of the universe will understand why we would agree with the premise, but still argue against the banner, just because of silly facts and logic. I've given up on rational discourse in the public. I'm content with my tribal banners waving, as long as they are waving in the right direction.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Oh absolutely. I contributed to a book on the French hadopi laws discussing whether it really would have an affect on child porn - by filtering it out. Talking to some French friends (who I got to recommend it to people :)) they all said people were interested, but ultimately too condition by the phrase "child porn" to change their opinion...

ErrantX 17y ago

The only thing I really take issue with is the Child Porn smoke screen that is constantly used; it's a none issue compared to the general issue with these devices. It's like with web filtering: CP is used as an excuse to get people onside. Case in point: this article uses "girl" even though the person in question is 29 - a Woman. It by no means makes the situation any better (clearly), but it allows the Sun to segue into the pedophile aspect nicely.... bah

pmichaud 17y ago
Yeah but you have to understand that the general public doesn't use facts and logic to form conclusions. They use social queues, and they need road signs--tribal banners, if you want--to know which side they should be on. We at HN are (generally) on the side for whom "child porn" is a rallying cry, and no one outside of our little bubble of the universe will understand why we would agree with the premise, but still argue against the banner, just because of silly facts and logic. I've given up on rational discourse in the public. I'm content with my tribal banners waving, as long as they are waving in the right direction.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Oh absolutely. I contributed to a book on the French hadopi laws discussing whether it really would have an affect on child porn - by filtering it out. Talking to some French friends (who I got to recommend it to people :)) they all said people were interested, but ultimately too condition by the phrase "child porn" to change their opinion...