The intention to prevent child sexual abuse material is indeed laudable. But the "solution" is not. Especially when we all know that this "solution" gives a leg

The intention to prevent child sexual abuse material is indeed laudable. But the "solution" is not. Especially when we all know that this "solution" gives a legal backing to corporates to do even more data mining on its users, and can easily be extended (to scan even more "illegal" content) and abused into a pervasive surveillance network desired by a lot of government around the world. For those wondering what's wrong with this, two hard-earned rights in a democracy go for a toss here: 1. The law presumes we are all innocent until proven guilty. 2. We have the right against self-incrimination. Pervasive surveillance like this starts with the presumption that we are all guilty of something ("if you are innocent, why are you scared of such surveillance?" or "what do you have to hide if you are innocent?"). The right against self-incrimination is linked to the first doctrine because compelling an accused to testify transfers the burden of proving innocence to the accused, instead of requiring the government to prove his guilt.