3 ms·

Rather than try to rehash the arguments myself, I'll just point you to Matthew Green's detailed takedown: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14230910979

by bostik 5y ago

Rather than try to rehash the arguments myself, I'll just point you to Matthew Green's detailed takedown: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1423091097933426692 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14230910979334266... But just to highlight one aspect, the list of maintained hashes has a known, non-negligible fraction of false positives. > That’s it for now. If this is an attempt at "first they came...", we're not biting.

intended 5y ago
Bit confused here. My statement was to clarify incorrect statements of the issue. Someone was worried about incorrect DoBs entered by jilted lovers would get people flagged. I just outlined what the actual process is. I feel that discussing the actual problem leads to better solutions and discussions. Since this topic attracts strong viewpoints, I was as brief as possible to reduce any potential target area, and even left a line supporting the slippery slope argument. If this was not conveyed, please let me know. Matter of fact, your response pointing out the false positive issues is a win in my book! Its better than what the parent discussion was about. But what I am truly perplexed by, is when you talk about "firs they came..." and "we're not biting". Who is we, and why wouldn't YOU agree with a position supporting a slippery slope argument? You seem to disagree with the actions being telegraphed by Apple. Could you clarify what you mean?
- bostik 5y ago
  This isn't a question about condoning child abuse. It's a question of doing probabilistic detection of someone possessing "objectionable content". Not sharing, not storing - possessing. This system, once deployed, will be used for other purposes. Just look at the history of every other technology supposedly built to combat CP. They all have expanded in scope. Trying to frame the question along the usual slippery slope arguments implicitly sets up anyone critisicing the mechanism as a supporter of fundamentally objectionable content.
  - intended 5y ago
    Sure, and i have no objection to what you are saying. This thread however was where I was making a separate point that helps this discussion by removing confusion or assumptions on how Apple’s proposal works. Perhaps you may have misread what I was saying ?
    - bostik 5y ago
      Sorry about the really long delay with answer, the week got better of me. Your original post posited a reasonable question, but I felt the details were somewhat muddled. The reason I reacted and answered was that I have seen this style of questioning elsewhere before. The way you finished off was actually a little alarming: it'd be really easy to drop in with a followup that in turn would look like the other person was trying to defend the indefensible. With my original reply I attempted to defuse that potential. The issue is incendiary enough without people willingly misunderstanding each other.

by bostik 5y ago

intended 5y ago

Bit confused here. My statement was to clarify incorrect statements of the issue. Someone was worried about incorrect DoBs entered by jilted lovers would get people flagged. I just outlined what the actual process is. I feel that discussing the actual problem leads to better solutions and discussions. Since this topic attracts strong viewpoints, I was as brief as possible to reduce any potential target area, and even left a line supporting the slippery slope argument. If this was not conveyed, please let me know. Matter of fact, your response pointing out the false positive issues is a win in my book! Its better than what the parent discussion was about. But what I am truly perplexed by, is when you talk about "firs they came..." and "we're not biting". Who is we, and why wouldn't YOU agree with a position supporting a slippery slope argument? You seem to disagree with the actions being telegraphed by Apple. Could you clarify what you mean?

bostik 5y ago
This isn't a question about condoning child abuse. It's a question of doing probabilistic detection of someone possessing "objectionable content". Not sharing, not storing - possessing. This system, once deployed, will be used for other purposes. Just look at the history of every other technology supposedly built to combat CP. They all have expanded in scope. Trying to frame the question along the usual slippery slope arguments implicitly sets up anyone critisicing the mechanism as a supporter of fundamentally objectionable content.
- intended 5y ago
  Sure, and i have no objection to what you are saying. This thread however was where I was making a separate point that helps this discussion by removing confusion or assumptions on how Apple’s proposal works. Perhaps you may have misread what I was saying ?
  - bostik 5y ago
    Sorry about the really long delay with answer, the week got better of me. Your original post posited a reasonable question, but I felt the details were somewhat muddled. The reason I reacted and answered was that I have seen this style of questioning elsewhere before. The way you finished off was actually a little alarming: it'd be really easy to drop in with a followup that in turn would look like the other person was trying to defend the indefensible. With my original reply I attempted to defuse that potential. The issue is incendiary enough without people willingly misunderstanding each other.