5 ms·

> someone usually mocks "it's always about the kids, think about the kids." To those critics: They have not seen the scope of this problem or the long term impa

> someone usually mocks "it's always about the kids, think about the kids." To those critics: They have not seen the scope of this problem or the long term impact. What you are saying here kind of sidetracks the actual problem those critics have though, doesn't it? The problem is not the acknowledgement of how bad child abuse is. The problem is whether we can trust the people who claim that everything they do, they do it for the children. The problem is damaged trust. And I think your last paragraph illustrates why child abuse is such an effective excuse, if someone criticizes your plan, just avoid and go into how bad child abuse really is. I'm not accusing you of anything here by the way, I like the article and your insight. I just see a huge danger in the critics and those who actually want to help with this problem being pitted against each other by people who see the topic of child abuse as nothing but a convenient carrier for their goals, the ones that have actually heavily damaged a lot of trust.

ChrisKnott 5y ago
What are the main instances where these claims were made fraudulently?
- dijit 5y ago
  Snoopers Charter in the UK springs to mind.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    The snoopers charter was always fairly broad though. It was never about child abuse, it covers collecting phone records etc which is used in most police investigations. Unless you are referring to some particular aspect of it I'm not aware of? I understand very broad stuff might be sold as "helping to fight child abuse" while avoiding talking about the full scope, but that isn't what Apple/NCMEC are doing here. They are making quite explicit claims about the scope. That's why I'm wondering if there is precedent for claims about "we will ONLY use this for CSAM" which were later backtracked.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
  One example I quote from EFF's post Apple's Plan to "Think Different" About Encryption Opens a Backdoor to Your Private Life [1] on the topic: We’ve already seen this mission creep in action. One of the technologies originally built to scan and hash child sexual abuse imagery has been repurposed to create a database of “terrorist” content [2] that companies can contribute to and access for the purpose of banning such content. The database, managed by the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) [3], is troublingly without external oversight, despite calls from civil society [4]. While it’s therefore impossible to know whether the database has overreached, we do know that platforms regularly flag critical content [5] as “terrorism,” including documentation of violence and repression, counterspeech, art, and satire. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-diff... [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/one-database-rule-them-all-invisible-content-cartel-undermines-freedom-1 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/one-database-rule-them... [3]: https://gifct.org/ https://gifct.org/ [4]: https://cdt.org/insights/human-rights-ngos-in-coalition-letter-to-gifct/ https://cdt.org/insights/human-rights-ngos-in-coalition-lett... [5]: https://www.eff.org/wp/caught-net-impact-extremist-speech-regulations-human-rights-content https://www.eff.org/wp/caught-net-impact-extremist-speech-re...
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    Thanks, I think I see what you mean. Essentially another organisation has used file hashes to scan for extremist material, by their definition of extreme. I agree that has potential for abuse but it doesn't seem to explain what the actual link is to NCMEC. It just says "One of the technologies originally built to scan and hash child sexual abuse imagery has been repurposed..." but doesn't name this "technology". Is it talking about PhotoDNA?
    - hvidgaard 5y ago
      I'm not the one you reply to, but I have some relevant thoughts on the process. I'm value my fundamental right to privacy. I understand that technology can be used to stop bad things from happening if we accept a little less privacy. I am okay with giving up some privacy under certain conditions, that is directly related to democracy. In essence a database and tech of any kind that systematically violates privacy we need the power distributed and "fair" trials. I.e. legislative branch, executive branch and judiciary branch. * Only the legislative branch, the politicians, should be able to enable violation of privacy, i.e. by law. Then and only then can companies be allowed to do it. * The executive have oversight of the process and tech, they would in essence be responsible to saying go/no-go to a specific implementation. They would also be responsible to perform a yearly review. All according to the law. This also includes the police. * The judiciary branch, the justice system, is responsible for looking at "positive" hits and grant the executive branch case by case powers to use the information. If we miss any of those three, I am not okay with systematically violation of privacy.
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

ChrisKnott 5y ago

What are the main instances where these claims were made fraudulently?

dijit 5y ago
Snoopers Charter in the UK springs to mind.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  The snoopers charter was always fairly broad though. It was never about child abuse, it covers collecting phone records etc which is used in most police investigations. Unless you are referring to some particular aspect of it I'm not aware of? I understand very broad stuff might be sold as "helping to fight child abuse" while avoiding talking about the full scope, but that isn't what Apple/NCMEC are doing here. They are making quite explicit claims about the scope. That's why I'm wondering if there is precedent for claims about "we will ONLY use this for CSAM" which were later backtracked.
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
One example I quote from EFF's post Apple's Plan to "Think Different" About Encryption Opens a Backdoor to Your Private Life [1] on the topic: We’ve already seen this mission creep in action. One of the technologies originally built to scan and hash child sexual abuse imagery has been repurposed to create a database of “terrorist” content [2] that companies can contribute to and access for the purpose of banning such content. The database, managed by the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) [3], is troublingly without external oversight, despite calls from civil society [4]. While it’s therefore impossible to know whether the database has overreached, we do know that platforms regularly flag critical content [5] as “terrorism,” including documentation of violence and repression, counterspeech, art, and satire. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-diff... [2]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/one-database-rule-them-all-invisible-content-cartel-undermines-freedom-1 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/one-database-rule-them... [3]: https://gifct.org/ https://gifct.org/ [4]: https://cdt.org/insights/human-rights-ngos-in-coalition-letter-to-gifct/ https://cdt.org/insights/human-rights-ngos-in-coalition-lett... [5]: https://www.eff.org/wp/caught-net-impact-extremist-speech-regulations-human-rights-content https://www.eff.org/wp/caught-net-impact-extremist-speech-re...
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  Thanks, I think I see what you mean. Essentially another organisation has used file hashes to scan for extremist material, by their definition of extreme. I agree that has potential for abuse but it doesn't seem to explain what the actual link is to NCMEC. It just says "One of the technologies originally built to scan and hash child sexual abuse imagery has been repurposed..." but doesn't name this "technology". Is it talking about PhotoDNA?
  - hvidgaard 5y ago
    I'm not the one you reply to, but I have some relevant thoughts on the process. I'm value my fundamental right to privacy. I understand that technology can be used to stop bad things from happening if we accept a little less privacy. I am okay with giving up some privacy under certain conditions, that is directly related to democracy. In essence a database and tech of any kind that systematically violates privacy we need the power distributed and "fair" trials. I.e. legislative branch, executive branch and judiciary branch. * Only the legislative branch, the politicians, should be able to enable violation of privacy, i.e. by law. Then and only then can companies be allowed to do it. * The executive have oversight of the process and tech, they would in essence be responsible to saying go/no-go to a specific implementation. They would also be responsible to perform a yearly review. All according to the law. This also includes the police. * The judiciary branch, the justice system, is responsible for looking at "positive" hits and grant the executive branch case by case powers to use the information. If we miss any of those three, I am not okay with systematically violation of privacy.
fsflover 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...