13 ms·

One thing I think is important to highlight here is people often make the argument that this sort of legislation is just a grab for power using child exploitati

One thing I think is important to highlight here is people often make the argument that this sort of legislation is just a grab for power using child exploitation as a cover. But if you actually take seriously the arguments made by people like Ashton Kutcher there's no doubt that there are people who genuinely are trying to solve the problem of child trafficking and this would actually help them do that. That's not to say that there aren't significant draw backs of this type of legislation, nor that on balance this type of solution is correct. I'm simply pointing out that there are genuine policy reasons to endorse this and if you oppose this it would be wise to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising.

pmontra 4y ago
It seems that this guy is looking for a way to make a lot of money with the blessing of governments. There is no evidence that he cares more about kids than money. It could have been anything else IMHO.
INTPenis 4y ago
Of course, the path to destruction is always paved with good intentions. But time and time again humans have shown that they cannot handle the responsibility of power. And giving governments access to all private communications is absolute power.
- ng55QPSK 4y ago
  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
dijit 4y ago
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I think it's extremely important not to dilute the public response to this. CSAM scanning is arbitrary, opaque and ubiquitous. You cannot know what the blocklist contains, such a system is not introspectable and it is not outside the realm of reason that a more totalitarian government could insert a picture of President Xi photoshopped as Winnie the Pooh or the famous Putin in make-up picture: and then they will immediately get a list of all dissidents. It's absolutely Orwellian, and it's invisible too. This is not the way. ---- I'll add that in general the hacker community (CCC and ilk) can be a bit more distrustful of authority than perhaps is healthy. I attended one talk at CCC where a person detailed all the "wrong" ways that the FBI was hacking pedophile sites and collecting personal information on the darkweb. I openly responded to him in support of the FBI; that wholesale collection of registered accounts on a pedophile website represents probable cause; that if it's illegal to gather information of pedophiles across county or country lines: then we should work on making it legal. There's a large difference in my mind, between taking conscious action in doing something, such as trying to buy drugs vs submitting yourself for a mandatory drug screening every week. Here's the talk: https://api.media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8018-law_enforcement_are_hacking_the_planet https://api.media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8018-law_enforcement_are_hac...
- throwmeariver1 4y ago
Benjammer 4y ago
I can confirm from talking to people who know him, and watching him speak about it at length in a small group, private setting, Ashton cares deeply about fighting child exploitation. His life outside of acting and family seems to basically consist of helping run his VC fund and working at Thorn, his company that works with governments to fight child exploitation online. He got emotional talking about Thorn and the work they've done. It's some of the most serious shit imaginable to fight against and deal with. I also wouldn't be surprised if he's had technical experts explain to him at least some of the problems with government oversight like this, and probably figures it's a valid tradeoff if it helps reduce child exploitation to any meaningful degree. He's honestly not a dumb guy at all.
- bruce343434 4y ago
  > He's honestly not a dumb guy at all. From your description he seems very irrational and led by emotion. His goal is noble but that's where it ends. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    That doesn't rebut the line you quote.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >probably figures it's a valid tradeoff if it helps reduce child exploitation to any meaningful degree. Without actual numbers and rational arguments, this is so subjective it is moot. People arguing against this aren't against fighting child sexual abuse or even sexual abuse in general. But the entire thing is so riddled with "what ifs" and more, that it's a hard sell to justify another step to the road of potential total control. Every parent wants their children to have as many lifelines as possible in case something bad happens, to let them experiment safely without predators lurking. What we should be asking is how much we're willing to give up for each lifeline, and at what point we have to accept nature (or in this case, society) just isn't going to be fair.
_fat_santa 4y ago
I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog post [1] they made blasting Facebook for implementing E2E on Facebook/IG Messenger. On the one hand yes they are technically correct, but at the same time the argument is so incredibly short sighted. Yes if we ban E2E then it will solve the problem of CSAM, but at the same time it will open the door to a host of other consequences. Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". [1]: https://www.thorn.org/blog/encryption-trend-threatens-child-safety-gains/ https://www.thorn.org/blog/encryption-trend-threatens-child-...
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". A) There's no shortage of people make that argument unironically B) If you just change "ban" to "tax to the point that the common man finds another solution" (which is the same sort of "some animals are more equal" situation that dragnets with selective enforcement create) the number of those people increases by an order of magnitude.
- loeg 4y ago
  Banning E2E doesn't "solve the problem of CSAM," anyway.
- cure 4y ago
  > I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog post [1] they made blasting Facebook for implementing E2E on Facebook/IG Messenger. I would argue that he's just trying to make money. Lobbying politicians so that a requirement for a product becomes enshrined in law, while your organization just happens to be providing that product? For a fee, of course. This is just plain old greed in a wrapper of virtue signaling. Yuck.
  - _delibash_ 4y ago
throwaway41213 4y ago
>there are people who genuinely are trying to solve the problem of child trafficking and this would actually help them do that. No, it would not help. What these well meaning people are missing is the fact, the organised pedophiles are technically versatile and very cautious. Any intrusion on privacy will quickly push them out of these communication channels and the only thing that is left is the risk for democracy.
- bjelkeman-again 4y ago
happythebob 4y ago
My concerns are on the macro level, that it will be used by the powerful to control the opposition parties. Both sides are not the same nor are both sides treated the same by lady justice. Long term, I believe this will be a dangerous political tool.
- xadhominemx 4y ago
  How would that actually happen?
  - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    Like any other corruption. Any scanning system will have people in charge of it. Those people are corruptible.
    - xadhominemx 4y ago
      Could you be more specific?
      - Dma54rhs 4y ago
        By normalising surveillance of course?
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        Why?
        xadhominemx 4y ago
        Because this scheme is actually a thoughtful way to address a real problem affecting real children. Giving zero ground on privacy to address problems like child sex exploitation is not workable over the long term - there will be some sacrifices to digital privacy, same as in every other aspect of life. So it would be good if you could provide specific faults with this scheme, so we can evaluate how bad those faults are compared to addressing some amount child exploitation, and compare this scheme to alternatives.
falcolas 4y ago
> if you oppose this it would be wise to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising. A technical solution that scans users' devices for known CSAM does not exist in a way which preserves privacy while still being resistant to surveillance overreach. Apple's method was decent at preserving privacy, but it still requires absolute trust in the entity who provides the list of hashes to not put anything but CSAM there. And what the EU is proposing goes beyond identifying known CSAM, but identifying new CSAM. The solution is, as always, making investigations into child exploitation and sex trafficking a priority. It doesn't require the ability to rifle through everyone's devices to find the predators. It certainly hasn't up to this point - the bottleneck is and always has been making it a priority (funding, manpower, etc).
- xadhominemx 4y ago
  Ok what if someone did sneak some non-CSAM? Some random person would get flagged, the photos would be manually reviewed, and then nothing bad would happen. Doesn’t seem like a very big deal.
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    I disagree. The manual review process uses a downscaled/greyscaled version of the image, and there are known attacks on this type of preporcessing.
    - xadhominemx 4y ago
      Ok what if someone attacks the preprocessing. What bad thing happens next?
      - falcolas 4y ago
        CASM can be distributed unimpeded, negating the positive aspects of such technology.
      - l33t2328 4y ago
        Imagine Xi puts a hash of Winnie on the list and the preprocessing attack is done to conceal CSAM in pictures of Winnie. Such images could be distributed to launch an attack.
raverbashing 4y ago
Yeah I don't believe in his good intentions as much as him trying to make more money by lobbying and selling their spyware "solutions"
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> I'm simply pointing out that there are genuine policy reasons to endorse this and if you oppose this it would be wise to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising. If I propose putting an unobstructed streaming camera in every room of every house, that would also solve a lot of problems. That does not mean people who oppose my solution need to come up with alternatives. They can simply oppose cameras in every room due to the problems of cameras in every room.
- ng55QPSK 4y ago
  " Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by the telescreen; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. " — Part I, Chapter 1, Nineteen Eighty-Four
  - tremon 4y ago
    And that is even less of a dystopia than what we're capable of now: there is no reason for any person to be plugging in to the telescreen to watch someone live, because it can all be recorded and then retroactively browsed at will.
    - loufe 4y ago
      Even worse, everything can be processed by efficient and reliable algorithms which reduces administrative load.
      - Tozen 4y ago
        The great thing about using "the algorithm", is that when if fails or is wrong, you blame it and not the creators, administrators, and authorizers of it.
    - 4y ago
dncornholio 4y ago
Genuine or not genuine, mass surveillance is a bad idea. Full stop.
- Traster 4y ago
  Yeah the point I'm making is this: It's fine for you to have that opinion, but if you don't find other ways to resolve Kutchers concerns he's going to continue pushing for this policy, and because he's a rich celebrity pushing a policy that the state is already pretty keen on, it's likely he's going to succeed. So on a practical level if you actually want to stop this becoming policy, it would be much more effective to actually to find different solutions.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    > So on a practical level if you actually want to stop this becoming policy, it would be much more effective to actually to find different solutions. There is no solution to the "problem" of some people sharing photos or other content which some other people don't like which would be compatible with either privacy or freedom of speech. The issue to be solved here isn't CSAM, it's CSA. The CSAM is evidence; they should be using it to find and prosecute actual abusers, not trying to drive it further underground.
cm2187 4y ago
Then you have the cynics like myself who remember the UK anti terrorists powers being used to freeze Icelandic banks assets during the financial crisis. There is a 1.00 probability that the authority will be extended and abused. So like for free speech, you can’t give up fundamental rights even if those rights get abused by some terrible people. Those rights cannot be a roadkill for a good cause.
pera 4y ago
I think people like him (i.e. a person without any background in computer science, AI, information security, etc) shouldn't be pushing for a solution they don't really comprehend. To me this is similar to those who were pushing for hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin/bleach as a cure for COVID-19. This is very dangerous, even if you are well-intentioned.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  I believe this is the correct response. Let Kutcher lobby the EU to make a plan for combating child trafficking and child pornography, however, do not push a solution you don't (fully) understand with it.
ycombinator3 4y ago
If we really want to fix this issue, we should let the government scan all our devices and communications on a constant basis.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  You are probably joking, but for argument sake. And then? Generate 100000 false positives per day (which is what will happen); arrest them all until proven innocent? Investigate them all until proven guilty? What? 100000 flagged data streams (videos, documents, sounds, images etc) is serious work to comb through as an AI is just not good enough to ruin someone's life while innocent. This will also happen with the current proposal anyway if executed broad enough.
alxlaz 4y ago
> if you oppose this it would be wise to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising Well if I am supposed to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising, then what, exactly, are we supposed to be paying the MPs for? Just to raise their hands when the voting comes? There are countless politicians, technology and policy experts, and government employees at all levels involved in this. When they come up with a solution and it turns out to be wrong, it's still their job -- literally -- to figure out a better one.
photochemsyn 4y ago
I think the concept here is more "Trojan Horse for implementation of Chinese-style mass surveillance" than "well-intentioned effort aimed at protecting children". The correct criminal approach for defeating child abuse rings is targeted investigation, not mass surveillance of everyone in the population. This for example involves using undercover police to infiltrate such rings and arrest their members. This is not a novel idea, either.
- Tozen 4y ago
  Correct. Attempts and any excuse to setup "Precrime" programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precrime), where the entire population is under continual surveillance by "algorithms", "AI", or agencies is about control. Saying it's about the children, makes anybody who argues against the point look bad. But once they have successfully slipped that under the door, the continual surveillance will go on to be for any and everything, as it becomes in any authoritarian state. It's just another and sneaky way to get to what is done in China.
  - riversflow 4y ago
    Just like when they slipped the Patriot Act under the door and we ended up with political persecution in the US?
    - Tozen 4y ago
      It appears you haven't heard of Snowden and many of his disclosures. Agencies have been using it and warrantless surveillance to violate privacy and rights at will, then use illegally or questionable gotten evidence to do parallel construction in further violation of rights. The continual erosion of rights sets the stage for authoritarianism. America was arguably not too far way from a coup attempt, Jan 6th. One of the next series of attempts can be successful. It would be smart for people to read up on how Putin came to power. Systems and histories are of course different, but there can be some parallels, in terms of subverting an existing system to one's own ends. Of course some people will think such is not possible, until it happens or nearly happens. When these control mechanisms are put together, like using "AI" (and who controls and updates it?) to continually scan all e-mails and messaging for added vague concepts such as "grooming" and whatever added on top, you are achieving a police state. The state, now that it has slipped in greater and more powerful mechanisms of mass surveillance and control (Precrime), can arbitrary decide what is a "violation" or not. Citizens of "free" countries can eventually be put under just as tight control, as the citizens of China, Russia, etc... Anything and everything can be labelled a threat to the state (or for your safety), to the people, to women, to children, etc... Do what the police state dictates, and they will be watching for compliance, or else. If you say anything against the state, you can find yourself charged with a "crime" or whisked away. A lot of people don't want to live like that, but then a lot of people will blindly walk off a cliff too.
abfan1127 4y ago
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
therealmarv 4y ago
There is no genius compromise or middle ground with end to end encrypted private messages. It's basically mathematical proven. Either you do surveillance (of course with best intentions) in any form or you don't do it at all.
user764743 4y ago
> solve the problem of child trafficking and this would actually help them do that. How would the proposed legislation help him do that? Human trafficking existed before the invention of encryption.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Because the people who propose solutions like this want to build a panopticon that does things that they like, while pretending that it's not a panopticon at all because that would make them sad, despite doing "good". That ability hasn't presented itself before now.
- raxxorrax 4y ago
  Also I doubt the content is proliferated through facebook and whatsapp. Perhaps by some careless people and that might lead to further investigations, but the proposal is just extremely inefficient and costs are too high.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Like with most crime fighting, investigators often just find the brain dead criminals, or just manufacture their own make believe criminals, to make it look like their use of funds produced results. Real investigations are hard, and it's just easier to go after the careless or ignorant, while the actually dangerous and capable evade getting caught. So, yes, you're right.
RobertoG 4y ago
Actually, I'm not sure I understand exactly the rational here. How this avoid child abuse?
zqlaxx 4y ago
Opponents of a repressive proposal are not required to find alternatives, but here is the obvious one: Rather than surveillance of every adult, forbid access to the Internet to minors. This would also reduce Facebook induced depression of teenagers, suicides and a lot more. You'll find very quickly that the noble advertising and surveillance lobbies will back off, even if you tell them to think of the children.
random314 4y ago
Except that the numbers Ashton uses to talk about "child trafficking" are made up. https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/06/29/real-men-get-their-facts-straight/ https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/06/29/real-men-get-their-f...
anfogoat 4y ago
We're about to lose the freedom to have encrypted communications and one of the important things to highlight is that the people pushing for this are genuine? I don't think so.
DoreenMichele 4y ago
Somewhere, Kutcher said poverty is a major contributing factor in trafficking but concluded poverty was too hard to solve. I wish he would up his game and actually try to "solve poverty." I think this is a power trip for the guy that makes him feel he matters and that matters more to him than actually making a difference. I'm not thrilled with it, personally.
raxxorrax 4y ago
More funding for teachers that can put eyes on the target because child abuse happens in the vicinity of the victim. If you really want an efficient solution, you have to start there instead of putting everyone under suspicion. The exception is human trafficking and it isn't a crime done by common criminals or lone offenders, it is done by organized criminal gangs in a large scale that can be targeted individually. I have no obligation to make any suggestion for not wanting my chats surveilled for that matter.

pmontra 4y ago

It seems that this guy is looking for a way to make a lot of money with the blessing of governments. There is no evidence that he cares more about kids than money. It could have been anything else IMHO.

INTPenis 4y ago

Of course, the path to destruction is always paved with good intentions. But time and time again humans have shown that they cannot handle the responsibility of power. And giving governments access to all private communications is absolute power.

ng55QPSK 4y ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

dijit 4y ago

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I think it's extremely important not to dilute the public response to this. CSAM scanning is arbitrary, opaque and ubiquitous. You cannot know what the blocklist contains, such a system is not introspectable and it is not outside the realm of reason that a more totalitarian government could insert a picture of President Xi photoshopped as Winnie the Pooh or the famous Putin in make-up picture: and then they will immediately get a list of all dissidents. It's absolutely Orwellian, and it's invisible too. This is not the way. ---- I'll add that in general the hacker community (CCC and ilk) can be a bit more distrustful of authority than perhaps is healthy. I attended one talk at CCC where a person detailed all the "wrong" ways that the FBI was hacking pedophile sites and collecting personal information on the darkweb. I openly responded to him in support of the FBI; that wholesale collection of registered accounts on a pedophile website represents probable cause; that if it's illegal to gather information of pedophiles across county or country lines: then we should work on making it legal. There's a large difference in my mind, between taking conscious action in doing something, such as trying to buy drugs vs submitting yourself for a mandatory drug screening every week. Here's the talk: https://api.media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8018-law_enforcement_are_hacking_the_planet https://api.media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8018-law_enforcement_are_hac...

throwmeariver1 4y ago

Benjammer 4y ago

I can confirm from talking to people who know him, and watching him speak about it at length in a small group, private setting, Ashton cares deeply about fighting child exploitation. His life outside of acting and family seems to basically consist of helping run his VC fund and working at Thorn, his company that works with governments to fight child exploitation online. He got emotional talking about Thorn and the work they've done. It's some of the most serious shit imaginable to fight against and deal with. I also wouldn't be surprised if he's had technical experts explain to him at least some of the problems with government oversight like this, and probably figures it's a valid tradeoff if it helps reduce child exploitation to any meaningful degree. He's honestly not a dumb guy at all.

bruce343434 4y ago
> He's honestly not a dumb guy at all. From your description he seems very irrational and led by emotion. His goal is noble but that's where it ends. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  That doesn't rebut the line you quote.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>probably figures it's a valid tradeoff if it helps reduce child exploitation to any meaningful degree. Without actual numbers and rational arguments, this is so subjective it is moot. People arguing against this aren't against fighting child sexual abuse or even sexual abuse in general. But the entire thing is so riddled with "what ifs" and more, that it's a hard sell to justify another step to the road of potential total control. Every parent wants their children to have as many lifelines as possible in case something bad happens, to let them experiment safely without predators lurking. What we should be asking is how much we're willing to give up for each lifeline, and at what point we have to accept nature (or in this case, society) just isn't going to be fair.

_fat_santa 4y ago

I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog post [1] they made blasting Facebook for implementing E2E on Facebook/IG Messenger. On the one hand yes they are technically correct, but at the same time the argument is so incredibly short sighted. Yes if we ban E2E then it will solve the problem of CSAM, but at the same time it will open the door to a host of other consequences. Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". [1]: https://www.thorn.org/blog/encryption-trend-threatens-child-safety-gains/ https://www.thorn.org/blog/encryption-trend-threatens-child-...

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". A) There's no shortage of people make that argument unironically B) If you just change "ban" to "tax to the point that the common man finds another solution" (which is the same sort of "some animals are more equal" situation that dragnets with selective enforcement create) the number of those people increases by an order of magnitude.
loeg 4y ago
Banning E2E doesn't "solve the problem of CSAM," anyway.
cure 4y ago
> I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog post [1] they made blasting Facebook for implementing E2E on Facebook/IG Messenger. I would argue that he's just trying to make money. Lobbying politicians so that a requirement for a product becomes enshrined in law, while your organization just happens to be providing that product? For a fee, of course. This is just plain old greed in a wrapper of virtue signaling. Yuck.
- _delibash_ 4y ago

throwaway41213 4y ago

>there are people who genuinely are trying to solve the problem of child trafficking and this would actually help them do that. No, it would not help. What these well meaning people are missing is the fact, the organised pedophiles are technically versatile and very cautious. Any intrusion on privacy will quickly push them out of these communication channels and the only thing that is left is the risk for democracy.

bjelkeman-again 4y ago

happythebob 4y ago

My concerns are on the macro level, that it will be used by the powerful to control the opposition parties. Both sides are not the same nor are both sides treated the same by lady justice. Long term, I believe this will be a dangerous political tool.

xadhominemx 4y ago
How would that actually happen?
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  Like any other corruption. Any scanning system will have people in charge of it. Those people are corruptible.
  - xadhominemx 4y ago
    Could you be more specific?
    - Dma54rhs 4y ago
      By normalising surveillance of course?
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      Why?
      - xadhominemx 4y ago
        Because this scheme is actually a thoughtful way to address a real problem affecting real children. Giving zero ground on privacy to address problems like child sex exploitation is not workable over the long term - there will be some sacrifices to digital privacy, same as in every other aspect of life. So it would be good if you could provide specific faults with this scheme, so we can evaluate how bad those faults are compared to addressing some amount child exploitation, and compare this scheme to alternatives.

falcolas 4y ago

> if you oppose this it would be wise to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising. A technical solution that scans users' devices for known CSAM does not exist in a way which preserves privacy while still being resistant to surveillance overreach. Apple's method was decent at preserving privacy, but it still requires absolute trust in the entity who provides the list of hashes to not put anything but CSAM there. And what the EU is proposing goes beyond identifying known CSAM, but identifying new CSAM. The solution is, as always, making investigations into child exploitation and sex trafficking a priority. It doesn't require the ability to rifle through everyone's devices to find the predators. It certainly hasn't up to this point - the bottleneck is and always has been making it a priority (funding, manpower, etc).

xadhominemx 4y ago
Ok what if someone did sneak some non-CSAM? Some random person would get flagged, the photos would be manually reviewed, and then nothing bad would happen. Doesn’t seem like a very big deal.
- l33t2328 4y ago
  I disagree. The manual review process uses a downscaled/greyscaled version of the image, and there are known attacks on this type of preporcessing.
  - xadhominemx 4y ago
    Ok what if someone attacks the preprocessing. What bad thing happens next?
    - falcolas 4y ago
      CASM can be distributed unimpeded, negating the positive aspects of such technology.
    - l33t2328 4y ago
      Imagine Xi puts a hash of Winnie on the list and the preprocessing attack is done to conceal CSAM in pictures of Winnie. Such images could be distributed to launch an attack.

raverbashing 4y ago

Yeah I don't believe in his good intentions as much as him trying to make more money by lobbying and selling their spyware "solutions"

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> I'm simply pointing out that there are genuine policy reasons to endorse this and if you oppose this it would be wise to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising. If I propose putting an unobstructed streaming camera in every room of every house, that would also solve a lot of problems. That does not mean people who oppose my solution need to come up with alternatives. They can simply oppose cameras in every room due to the problems of cameras in every room.

ng55QPSK 4y ago
" Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by the telescreen; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. " — Part I, Chapter 1, Nineteen Eighty-Four
- tremon 4y ago
  And that is even less of a dystopia than what we're capable of now: there is no reason for any person to be plugging in to the telescreen to watch someone live, because it can all be recorded and then retroactively browsed at will.
  - loufe 4y ago
    Even worse, everything can be processed by efficient and reliable algorithms which reduces administrative load.
    - Tozen 4y ago
      The great thing about using "the algorithm", is that when if fails or is wrong, you blame it and not the creators, administrators, and authorizers of it.
  - 4y ago

dncornholio 4y ago

Genuine or not genuine, mass surveillance is a bad idea. Full stop.

Traster 4y ago
Yeah the point I'm making is this: It's fine for you to have that opinion, but if you don't find other ways to resolve Kutchers concerns he's going to continue pushing for this policy, and because he's a rich celebrity pushing a policy that the state is already pretty keen on, it's likely he's going to succeed. So on a practical level if you actually want to stop this becoming policy, it would be much more effective to actually to find different solutions.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > So on a practical level if you actually want to stop this becoming policy, it would be much more effective to actually to find different solutions. There is no solution to the "problem" of some people sharing photos or other content which some other people don't like which would be compatible with either privacy or freedom of speech. The issue to be solved here isn't CSAM, it's CSA. The CSAM is evidence; they should be using it to find and prosecute actual abusers, not trying to drive it further underground.

cm2187 4y ago

Then you have the cynics like myself who remember the UK anti terrorists powers being used to freeze Icelandic banks assets during the financial crisis. There is a 1.00 probability that the authority will be extended and abused. So like for free speech, you can’t give up fundamental rights even if those rights get abused by some terrible people. Those rights cannot be a roadkill for a good cause.

pera 4y ago

I think people like him (i.e. a person without any background in computer science, AI, information security, etc) shouldn't be pushing for a solution they don't really comprehend. To me this is similar to those who were pushing for hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin/bleach as a cure for COVID-19. This is very dangerous, even if you are well-intentioned.

tluyben2 4y ago
I believe this is the correct response. Let Kutcher lobby the EU to make a plan for combating child trafficking and child pornography, however, do not push a solution you don't (fully) understand with it.

ycombinator3 4y ago

If we really want to fix this issue, we should let the government scan all our devices and communications on a constant basis.

tluyben2 4y ago
You are probably joking, but for argument sake. And then? Generate 100000 false positives per day (which is what will happen); arrest them all until proven innocent? Investigate them all until proven guilty? What? 100000 flagged data streams (videos, documents, sounds, images etc) is serious work to comb through as an AI is just not good enough to ruin someone's life while innocent. This will also happen with the current proposal anyway if executed broad enough.

alxlaz 4y ago

> if you oppose this it would be wise to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising Well if I am supposed to find other ways of solving the concerns people like Kutcher are raising, then what, exactly, are we supposed to be paying the MPs for? Just to raise their hands when the voting comes? There are countless politicians, technology and policy experts, and government employees at all levels involved in this. When they come up with a solution and it turns out to be wrong, it's still their job -- literally -- to figure out a better one.

photochemsyn 4y ago

I think the concept here is more "Trojan Horse for implementation of Chinese-style mass surveillance" than "well-intentioned effort aimed at protecting children". The correct criminal approach for defeating child abuse rings is targeted investigation, not mass surveillance of everyone in the population. This for example involves using undercover police to infiltrate such rings and arrest their members. This is not a novel idea, either.

Tozen 4y ago
Correct. Attempts and any excuse to setup "Precrime" programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precrime), where the entire population is under continual surveillance by "algorithms", "AI", or agencies is about control. Saying it's about the children, makes anybody who argues against the point look bad. But once they have successfully slipped that under the door, the continual surveillance will go on to be for any and everything, as it becomes in any authoritarian state. It's just another and sneaky way to get to what is done in China.
- riversflow 4y ago
  Just like when they slipped the Patriot Act under the door and we ended up with political persecution in the US?
  - Tozen 4y ago
    It appears you haven't heard of Snowden and many of his disclosures. Agencies have been using it and warrantless surveillance to violate privacy and rights at will, then use illegally or questionable gotten evidence to do parallel construction in further violation of rights. The continual erosion of rights sets the stage for authoritarianism. America was arguably not too far way from a coup attempt, Jan 6th. One of the next series of attempts can be successful. It would be smart for people to read up on how Putin came to power. Systems and histories are of course different, but there can be some parallels, in terms of subverting an existing system to one's own ends. Of course some people will think such is not possible, until it happens or nearly happens. When these control mechanisms are put together, like using "AI" (and who controls and updates it?) to continually scan all e-mails and messaging for added vague concepts such as "grooming" and whatever added on top, you are achieving a police state. The state, now that it has slipped in greater and more powerful mechanisms of mass surveillance and control (Precrime), can arbitrary decide what is a "violation" or not. Citizens of "free" countries can eventually be put under just as tight control, as the citizens of China, Russia, etc... Anything and everything can be labelled a threat to the state (or for your safety), to the people, to women, to children, etc... Do what the police state dictates, and they will be watching for compliance, or else. If you say anything against the state, you can find yourself charged with a "crime" or whisked away. A lot of people don't want to live like that, but then a lot of people will blindly walk off a cliff too.

abfan1127 4y ago

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

therealmarv 4y ago

There is no genius compromise or middle ground with end to end encrypted private messages. It's basically mathematical proven. Either you do surveillance (of course with best intentions) in any form or you don't do it at all.

user764743 4y ago

> solve the problem of child trafficking and this would actually help them do that. How would the proposed legislation help him do that? Human trafficking existed before the invention of encryption.

heavyset_go 4y ago
Because the people who propose solutions like this want to build a panopticon that does things that they like, while pretending that it's not a panopticon at all because that would make them sad, despite doing "good". That ability hasn't presented itself before now.
raxxorrax 4y ago
Also I doubt the content is proliferated through facebook and whatsapp. Perhaps by some careless people and that might lead to further investigations, but the proposal is just extremely inefficient and costs are too high.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Like with most crime fighting, investigators often just find the brain dead criminals, or just manufacture their own make believe criminals, to make it look like their use of funds produced results. Real investigations are hard, and it's just easier to go after the careless or ignorant, while the actually dangerous and capable evade getting caught. So, yes, you're right.

RobertoG 4y ago

Actually, I'm not sure I understand exactly the rational here. How this avoid child abuse?

zqlaxx 4y ago

Opponents of a repressive proposal are not required to find alternatives, but here is the obvious one: Rather than surveillance of every adult, forbid access to the Internet to minors. This would also reduce Facebook induced depression of teenagers, suicides and a lot more. You'll find very quickly that the noble advertising and surveillance lobbies will back off, even if you tell them to think of the children.

random314 4y ago

Except that the numbers Ashton uses to talk about "child trafficking" are made up. https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/06/29/real-men-get-their-facts-straight/ https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/06/29/real-men-get-their-f...

anfogoat 4y ago

We're about to lose the freedom to have encrypted communications and one of the important things to highlight is that the people pushing for this are genuine? I don't think so.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Somewhere, Kutcher said poverty is a major contributing factor in trafficking but concluded poverty was too hard to solve. I wish he would up his game and actually try to "solve poverty." I think this is a power trip for the guy that makes him feel he matters and that matters more to him than actually making a difference. I'm not thrilled with it, personally.

raxxorrax 4y ago

More funding for teachers that can put eyes on the target because child abuse happens in the vicinity of the victim. If you really want an efficient solution, you have to start there instead of putting everyone under suspicion. The exception is human trafficking and it isn't a crime done by common criminals or lone offenders, it is done by organized criminal gangs in a large scale that can be targeted individually. I have no obligation to make any suggestion for not wanting my chats surveilled for that matter.