4 ms·

What does CSAM have to do with anti-trust suits?

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
What does politics have to do with politics?
MerlinDE 5y ago
Anti child abuse measures are regularly utilized to push for measures you otherwise can‘t establish. Most of the time surveillance and censorship. Just look back 10+ years to Germany, where „Zensursula“ tried to establish DNS blocking for the media industry by arguing for child safety. The approach is always the same. Just this time, Apple has so many devices in the market, that if this succeeds we‘ll all be headed for surveillance disaster. Given that fact that Snowden’s revelations didn’t generate ANY actions within the public, I doubt to see any actions this time.
wpietri 5y ago
Two things. One is political give and take. As their people negotiate with particular political actors, "We'll give you nothing," works much less well than, "We can't give you X, but how about Y?" The other is that the tech giants are looking unaccountable and antisocial. Privacy absolutism is popular here, but there are real social costs to it, so it's not popular everywhere. If Apple can say, "Yes, privacy is important, but we're not crazy; we agree we don't want to help out child pornographers", then that is much better positioning.
- shuckles 5y ago
  What politician wins marginal votes on the back of: “I didn’t take on the big tech anti trust monopoly, but I got them to scan your photo library for CSAM!”?
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Wrong question. It's which politician can get votes by saying, "I took on big tech and now Apple is protecting our children from predators."
    - shuckles 5y ago
      In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology.
      - headShrinker 5y ago
        Just off the top of my head there are a few people that come to mind. “After the 2016 FBI–Apple encryption dispute, Feinstein and Richard Burr sponsored a bill that would be likely to criminalize all forms of strong encryption in electronic communication between citizens” Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein She was on senate subcommittees that handles all sorts of legality for technology companies. * Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism * Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees * Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law * Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law (Chair, 117th Congress) From her gov CV page: “The Judiciary Committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions in the Senate, ranging from criminal justice and immigration issues to antitrust and intellectual property law.“ Source: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/thejudiciarycommittee https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/thejudicia...
        shuckles 5y ago
        Feinstein was the head of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition under Obama, a period during which tech anti-trust scrutiny was especially lax. On matters of anti-trust specifically and platform privacy generally she is not the politician who would make the hypothesized deal.
        headShrinker 5y ago
        You’re splitting hairs. Feinstein was mostly alone in her convictions but not completely. Again: > In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology. > there is effectively nobody in this position. Wrong. There are people and Feinstein is a great example of someone who worked quite hard to kill encryption while also being on various committees handling anti-trust. If her anti-encryption bill passed or if she was able to push through some anti-trust through the Judiciary committee she would brag about it in her reelection campaign. Feinstein is perfect model for someone who would gladly tout her legacy while on the judiciary committee and equally her accomplishments on a national security subcommittee. You are wrong sir, now tuck your tail and go away. I’m done wasting my time with you. But now I know you quite well, you are a narcissist and you have to have the final word. So go ahead and prove me right…
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

What does politics have to do with politics?

Anti child abuse measures are regularly utilized to push for measures you otherwise can‘t establish. Most of the time surveillance and censorship. Just look back 10+ years to Germany, where „Zensursula“ tried to establish DNS blocking for the media industry by arguing for child safety. The approach is always the same. Just this time, Apple has so many devices in the market, that if this succeeds we‘ll all be headed for surveillance disaster. Given that fact that Snowden’s revelations didn’t generate ANY actions within the public, I doubt to see any actions this time.

wpietri 5y ago

Two things. One is political give and take. As their people negotiate with particular political actors, "We'll give you nothing," works much less well than, "We can't give you X, but how about Y?" The other is that the tech giants are looking unaccountable and antisocial. Privacy absolutism is popular here, but there are real social costs to it, so it's not popular everywhere. If Apple can say, "Yes, privacy is important, but we're not crazy; we agree we don't want to help out child pornographers", then that is much better positioning.

shuckles 5y ago
What politician wins marginal votes on the back of: “I didn’t take on the big tech anti trust monopoly, but I got them to scan your photo library for CSAM!”?
- wpietri 5y ago
  Wrong question. It's which politician can get votes by saying, "I took on big tech and now Apple is protecting our children from predators."
  - shuckles 5y ago
    In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology.
    - headShrinker 5y ago
      Just off the top of my head there are a few people that come to mind. “After the 2016 FBI–Apple encryption dispute, Feinstein and Richard Burr sponsored a bill that would be likely to criminalize all forms of strong encryption in electronic communication between citizens” Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein She was on senate subcommittees that handles all sorts of legality for technology companies. * Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism * Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees * Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law * Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law (Chair, 117th Congress) From her gov CV page: “The Judiciary Committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions in the Senate, ranging from criminal justice and immigration issues to antitrust and intellectual property law.“ Source: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/thejudiciarycommittee https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/thejudicia...
      - shuckles 5y ago
        Feinstein was the head of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition under Obama, a period during which tech anti-trust scrutiny was especially lax. On matters of anti-trust specifically and platform privacy generally she is not the politician who would make the hypothesized deal.
        headShrinker 5y ago
        You’re splitting hairs. Feinstein was mostly alone in her convictions but not completely. Again: > In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology. > there is effectively nobody in this position. Wrong. There are people and Feinstein is a great example of someone who worked quite hard to kill encryption while also being on various committees handling anti-trust. If her anti-encryption bill passed or if she was able to push through some anti-trust through the Judiciary committee she would brag about it in her reelection campaign. Feinstein is perfect model for someone who would gladly tout her legacy while on the judiciary committee and equally her accomplishments on a national security subcommittee. You are wrong sir, now tuck your tail and go away. I’m done wasting my time with you. But now I know you quite well, you are a narcissist and you have to have the final word. So go ahead and prove me right…

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]