4 ms·

"To effectively address the misuse of online services for the purposes of child sexual abuse, clear rules are needed, with robust conditions and safeguards. The

"To effectively address the misuse of online services for the purposes of child sexual abuse, clear rules are needed, with robust conditions and safeguards. The proposed rules will oblige providers to detect, report and remove child sexual abuse material on their services." It does seem like a "lobby for more surveillance". Or can you think of a way to "detect, report and remove..." content without examining the contents of every single message sent on the platform?

anonymouswacker 4y ago
The best way to "detect" would be to, obviously, read it. So yes, this is surveillance, and just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you're not wrong.
- no-dr-onboard 4y ago
  Connotation vs denotation, but I understand where you're coming from. Admittedly, I'm increasingly shocked that I've found myself on this side of the surveillance debate for this issue. I suppose this has something to do with my susceptibility to the "think of the children" tactic. What separates this from other "appeal to pity" tactics is that this bill is the source of this bill. This isn't a group of EU equivalent democratic/republican lawmakers who are pushing for a surveillance bill because they have their wallets padded with intelligence contractor money. This is a philanthropist who has track record of sustained, devoted, high-effort actions in fighting against this dark industry. I suppose the counter argument remains the same though, right? Whomever is granted the authority to surveil will ultimately misuse their access. Admittedly, I can't pull myself away from agreeing with that. What a mess.
zqlaxx 4y ago
The outcome is indeed more surveillance. It is also patently easy to frame anyone by sending them the wrong material or triggering terms that the artificial "intelligence" scans for. In which case innocent persons will end up on watch lists or being harassed by intrusive investigations.
3pt14159 4y ago
In my opinion, and with acknowledging the downsides, the parts of modern IT that are capable of transmission for the purposes of duplication should have some degree of automated surveillance for safeguarding our populations from harm. Not just for CSAM but for other dangerous information as well. For example, stolen financial information like credit card numbers. For strictly single user stuff, I'm less sure. For example, personal, non-shared backups seem different to me than shared backup drives. I understand that an enterprising young hacker can encrypt it manually, but that's akin to someone becoming a gunsmith. It takes effort and usually the people that go through the training are the types of people we trust with the knowledge anyway. Now I've personally worked on software to help stop the spread of CSAM, so I have my biases here, but I also understand the dangers of unmitigated surveillance. But just as we trust our democracies with munitions, I think we should do the same with surveillance, provided that courts and the rule of law are strongly enshrined. From what I know, this is the case in my country of Canada. I want to live in a world that is safe and free. It takes work and discussions to achieve both at the same time, but I have faith that we can do it if we try.

anonymouswacker 4y ago

The best way to "detect" would be to, obviously, read it. So yes, this is surveillance, and just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you're not wrong.

no-dr-onboard 4y ago
Connotation vs denotation, but I understand where you're coming from. Admittedly, I'm increasingly shocked that I've found myself on this side of the surveillance debate for this issue. I suppose this has something to do with my susceptibility to the "think of the children" tactic. What separates this from other "appeal to pity" tactics is that this bill is the source of this bill. This isn't a group of EU equivalent democratic/republican lawmakers who are pushing for a surveillance bill because they have their wallets padded with intelligence contractor money. This is a philanthropist who has track record of sustained, devoted, high-effort actions in fighting against this dark industry. I suppose the counter argument remains the same though, right? Whomever is granted the authority to surveil will ultimately misuse their access. Admittedly, I can't pull myself away from agreeing with that. What a mess.

zqlaxx 4y ago

The outcome is indeed more surveillance. It is also patently easy to frame anyone by sending them the wrong material or triggering terms that the artificial "intelligence" scans for. In which case innocent persons will end up on watch lists or being harassed by intrusive investigations.

3pt14159 4y ago

In my opinion, and with acknowledging the downsides, the parts of modern IT that are capable of transmission for the purposes of duplication should have some degree of automated surveillance for safeguarding our populations from harm. Not just for CSAM but for other dangerous information as well. For example, stolen financial information like credit card numbers. For strictly single user stuff, I'm less sure. For example, personal, non-shared backups seem different to me than shared backup drives. I understand that an enterprising young hacker can encrypt it manually, but that's akin to someone becoming a gunsmith. It takes effort and usually the people that go through the training are the types of people we trust with the knowledge anyway. Now I've personally worked on software to help stop the spread of CSAM, so I have my biases here, but I also understand the dangers of unmitigated surveillance. But just as we trust our democracies with munitions, I think we should do the same with surveillance, provided that courts and the rule of law are strongly enshrined. From what I know, this is the case in my country of Canada. I want to live in a world that is safe and free. It takes work and discussions to achieve both at the same time, but I have faith that we can do it if we try.