4 ms·
> If the government can just claim you had CP without proof, then they can just… do that? The problem is that they can do whatever if you have CP. Emphasis on
by himinlomax 5y ago
> If the government can just claim you had CP without proof, then they can just… do that?
The problem is that they can do whatever if you have CP. Emphasis on "have": you might not even know you have it, because all it takes for you to be guilty is for a forbidden bit of data to be on your disk or cloud account. How did it end there? Doesn't matter much. It's unlikely you'll be convicted if someone else maliciously puts CP on your drive, but it's extremely likely your whole neighborhood will know about it before it's settled. Think about that.
> They don’t need Apples system.
Apple's system makes it sure that whenever someone puts CP on someone else's account, it rings the police and starts the nightmare. Without it, there's a few extra steps that make the nightmare much less likely to happen in the first place.
- mthoms 5y agoThis is plausible and exactly why I oppose this system. The only argument I made was against the claim that fully automated police dispatches will occur because of this system (in the west). Making outrageous, tinfoil hat level claims does not help our collective argument against this system. It just makes us look like paranoid conspiracy theorists. Let’s make coherent arguments (like the one you made above) instead of fantasy ones.