6 ms·

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Proposal%20for%20a%20Regulation%20laying%20down%20rules%20to%20prevent%20and%20combat%20child%20sexual%20

by Syonyk 4y ago

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Proposal%20for%20a%20Regulation%20laying%20down%20rules%20to%20prevent%20and%20combat%20child%20sexual%20abuse_en_0.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo... This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming" and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't you trust machine learning that can't tell the difference between a cat and a ferret to know what is and isn't CSAM? That's a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door." I like this bit, though: > The processing of users’ personal data for the purposes of detecting, reporting and removing online child sexual abuse has a significant impact on users’ rights and can be justified only in view of the importance of preventing and combating online child sexual abuse.

breakfastduck 4y ago
Why do you like that? They can focus on ONE justification which is 'acceptable'. But one justification is all they need. They don't need more than one for total access.
- Syonyk 4y ago
  Just the brazen "Yeah, privacy and stuff are important, But the Children!" phrasing of it. They're not even trying to pretend it's anything but an excuse anymore.
  - sharken 4y ago
    This is no different from the outrage with Apple and client-side scanning of your device. Yes, we should absolutely do everything we can to protect the children. But losing our privacy is not and can never be an acceptable course of action. There is a frighteningly short distance from giving up privacy due to CSAM, to a full-blown surveillance state.
    - DontMindit 4y ago
      Ironically this law will put the childrens futures at enormous risk
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": >As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the detection of the dissemination of known and new child sexual abuse material), since it requires automatically scanning through texts in interpersonal communications. It is important to bear in mind in this regard that such scanning is often the only possible way to detect it and that the technology used does not ‘understand’ the content of the communications but rather looks for known, pre-identified patterns that indicate potential grooming. Detection technologies have also already acquired a high degree of accuracy, although human oversight and review remain necessary, and indicators of ‘grooming’ are becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms learn. That whole paragraph sounds a lot more terrifying and intrusive. At least they admit the flaws, but I haven't quite had the best experience with the EU's way of handling this stuff.
- Syonyk 4y ago
  That's one of them, yes. I've not had the time to read the whole thing today, and probably won't have time, so I'm trying to encourage people to dig through it a bit themselves and get a feel for just how "But the Children!" it is, as a reason to violate every bit of privacy they think they can get away with.
- skummetmaelk 4y ago
  95% of men aged 20-30 will be flagged for telling their equally aged friends to "suck their dick".
  - usrn 4y ago
    A lot of people are going to start using XMPP/OMEMO.
    - rdl 4y ago
belter 4y ago
You have it here on pag 7 "...Thereby, the proposed Regulation limits the interference with the right to personal data protection of users and their right to confidentiality of communications, to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of ensuring the achievement of its objectives, that is, laying down harmonised rules for effectively preventing and combating online child sexual abuse in the internal market..." For all effects, today the 11 of May, is the day the EU tried to remove the right to privacy in communications in the name of protecting children. From the hundreds of measures and police actions they could take them seem to think this is the most important.
causi 4y ago
That's a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door." There's also the simple fact that the reporting of CSAM involves someone seeing CSAM. You see it and then you report it so it gets removed. Does the copy in your browser cache incriminate you? I can also imagine someone deciding they need to save it to forward to the police, whether or not that's useful.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door. Reminder: Europe is not US. Nobody can smash your door here without proper authorization from a court. And even then, they would knock.
- martimarkov 4y ago
  But the OP's sentiment still stands. Repetitional damage, stress, potential job loss, etc. just because you wanted to take a picture of your daughter or son in the bathtub playing with a rubber duck to send to your grandparents. I mean my parents still have those pictures in photo albums and they have been shown multiple times to family friends or relatives - nobody has obvs objected - but there is nobody from a 3rd party with 0 context watching over their heads deciding if this is child porn or not. (Plus I think I look adorable with my duck shampoo and recently found it in the basement when doing cleanup <3). And I very much like those pictures as they are interesting moments of my life that I don't have memories of but are ME. But to extend this - maybe my neighbours think that is super wrong, maybe my employer. In it's current form the regulation allows for a lot of private data spillage to other ppl. Even if it's just - yes wrong flag by the alog -> someone gets to see me or my children naked - wtf I'd argue that's abuse.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > But the OP's sentiment still stands. Repetitional damage, stress, potential job loss This has never happened though! Can you point me to a case in EU where a parent took a photo of their children and got in trouble? So it's kinda like saying: but OP is right, we should all live underground, because aliens could fire lasers on us!
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > Can you point me to a case ... took I think the idea is that of the risk posed by automation within inadequate workflows. Which, incidentally, is a case-relevant reality in areas you yourself mentioned. And similarly, following there have been case-relevant realities of «repetitional damage, stress, potential job loss» - in other areas that still have caused troubles to citizens after inadequate workflows, and sometimes even owing to imperfect automation.
tremon 4y ago
Curious. I'd much rather these resources were spent on combating offline child sexual abuse.

by Syonyk 4y ago

breakfastduck 4y ago

Why do you like that? They can focus on ONE justification which is 'acceptable'. But one justification is all they need. They don't need more than one for total access.

Syonyk 4y ago
Just the brazen "Yeah, privacy and stuff are important, But the Children!" phrasing of it. They're not even trying to pretend it's anything but an excuse anymore.
- sharken 4y ago
  This is no different from the outrage with Apple and client-side scanning of your device. Yes, we should absolutely do everything we can to protect the children. But losing our privacy is not and can never be an acceptable course of action. There is a frighteningly short distance from giving up privacy due to CSAM, to a full-blown surveillance state.
  - DontMindit 4y ago
    Ironically this law will put the childrens futures at enormous risk

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations": >As mentioned, detecting ‘grooming’ would have a positive impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the detection of the dissemination of known and new child sexual abuse material), since it requires automatically scanning through texts in interpersonal communications. It is important to bear in mind in this regard that such scanning is often the only possible way to detect it and that the technology used does not ‘understand’ the content of the communications but rather looks for known, pre-identified patterns that indicate potential grooming. Detection technologies have also already acquired a high degree of accuracy, although human oversight and review remain necessary, and indicators of ‘grooming’ are becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms learn. That whole paragraph sounds a lot more terrifying and intrusive. At least they admit the flaws, but I haven't quite had the best experience with the EU's way of handling this stuff.

Syonyk 4y ago
That's one of them, yes. I've not had the time to read the whole thing today, and probably won't have time, so I'm trying to encourage people to dig through it a bit themselves and get a feel for just how "But the Children!" it is, as a reason to violate every bit of privacy they think they can get away with.
skummetmaelk 4y ago
95% of men aged 20-30 will be flagged for telling their equally aged friends to "suck their dick".
- usrn 4y ago
  A lot of people are going to start using XMPP/OMEMO.
  - rdl 4y ago

belter 4y ago

You have it here on pag 7 "...Thereby, the proposed Regulation limits the interference with the right to personal data protection of users and their right to confidentiality of communications, to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of ensuring the achievement of its objectives, that is, laying down harmonised rules for effectively preventing and combating online child sexual abuse in the internal market..." For all effects, today the 11 of May, is the day the EU tried to remove the right to privacy in communications in the name of protecting children. From the hundreds of measures and police actions they could take them seem to think this is the most important.

causi 4y ago

That's a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door." There's also the simple fact that the reporting of CSAM involves someone seeing CSAM. You see it and then you report it so it gets removed. Does the copy in your browser cache incriminate you? I can also imagine someone deciding they need to save it to forward to the police, whether or not that's useful.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police smash down your door. Reminder: Europe is not US. Nobody can smash your door here without proper authorization from a court. And even then, they would knock.

martimarkov 4y ago
But the OP's sentiment still stands. Repetitional damage, stress, potential job loss, etc. just because you wanted to take a picture of your daughter or son in the bathtub playing with a rubber duck to send to your grandparents. I mean my parents still have those pictures in photo albums and they have been shown multiple times to family friends or relatives - nobody has obvs objected - but there is nobody from a 3rd party with 0 context watching over their heads deciding if this is child porn or not. (Plus I think I look adorable with my duck shampoo and recently found it in the basement when doing cleanup <3). And I very much like those pictures as they are interesting moments of my life that I don't have memories of but are ME. But to extend this - maybe my neighbours think that is super wrong, maybe my employer. In it's current form the regulation allows for a lot of private data spillage to other ppl. Even if it's just - yes wrong flag by the alog -> someone gets to see me or my children naked - wtf I'd argue that's abuse.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > But the OP's sentiment still stands. Repetitional damage, stress, potential job loss This has never happened though! Can you point me to a case in EU where a parent took a photo of their children and got in trouble? So it's kinda like saying: but OP is right, we should all live underground, because aliens could fire lasers on us!
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Can you point me to a case ... took I think the idea is that of the risk posed by automation within inadequate workflows. Which, incidentally, is a case-relevant reality in areas you yourself mentioned. And similarly, following there have been case-relevant realities of «repetitional damage, stress, potential job loss» - in other areas that still have caused troubles to citizens after inadequate workflows, and sometimes even owing to imperfect automation.

tremon 4y ago

Curious. I'd much rather these resources were spent on combating offline child sexual abuse.