3 ms·

"Please know that I believe we must strike an appropriate balance between personal privacy and public safety." Why do you believe that, Dianne? Do you disagree

"Please know that I believe we must strike an appropriate balance between personal privacy and public safety." Why do you believe that, Dianne? Do you disagree with the spirit of the Fourth Amendment? Are invasions of personal privacy only justified by probable cause, or is that not the case? What is your standard for the "appropriate balance"? ---------- Is it even worth assuming sincerity with somebody like Feinstein? Child pornography is a heinous crime, but not nearly as heinous as using child pornography as a lever for industrial scale human rights abuses. Frauds and/or useful idiots.

malandrew 7y ago
What's more absurd is the assumption that they can stop child porn or sharing of anything "subjective" in the sense that it's a bunch of bytes difficult to distinguish from other bytes without manual filtering. You just can't automate distinguishing between legitimate porn and child porn. Even if you could, you'll just drive sharing of such content underground, while trampling all over the personal rights of those doing nothing wrong. If they really want to address child pornography as a problem, they would treat it as a social ill/disease and go after the users instead of the platform. The goal should be reform that minimizes recidivism because it makes it easier to find those partaking in this content. At least with something like Facebook, they have a shot at identifying those sharing such content. Make it impossible to share on a widely used and understood service like Facebook and people will migrate to platforms that are much much harder to police.
JamesBarney 7y ago
I bet she has advocates in her office all the time with heinous pictures and stories. And I imagine over time that is more convincing than abstract arguments for privacy. I think she's making the wrong call but I can understand the process by which she made it.

malandrew 7y ago

What's more absurd is the assumption that they can stop child porn or sharing of anything "subjective" in the sense that it's a bunch of bytes difficult to distinguish from other bytes without manual filtering. You just can't automate distinguishing between legitimate porn and child porn. Even if you could, you'll just drive sharing of such content underground, while trampling all over the personal rights of those doing nothing wrong. If they really want to address child pornography as a problem, they would treat it as a social ill/disease and go after the users instead of the platform. The goal should be reform that minimizes recidivism because it makes it easier to find those partaking in this content. At least with something like Facebook, they have a shot at identifying those sharing such content. Make it impossible to share on a widely used and understood service like Facebook and people will migrate to platforms that are much much harder to police.

JamesBarney 7y ago

I bet she has advocates in her office all the time with heinous pictures and stories. And I imagine over time that is more convincing than abstract arguments for privacy. I think she's making the wrong call but I can understand the process by which she made it.