4 ms·
> “A chat sent from this person’s phone tripped the detector” is a reasonable justification. A black box detector that similar to a trained drug dog will bark
by josefx 4y ago
> “A chat sent from this person’s phone tripped the detector” is a reasonable justification.
A black box detector that similar to a trained drug dog will bark on command. Last time a secret internet block list pushed by von der Leyen was leaked it became clear that they wont limit this stuff to child protection and will do their best to keep the actual criteria used secret. Just mentioning the name von der Leyen in a chat might get you on a list. It is times like these where I would love to have the GDR back, a place where we could just drop of all the crazy Stasi wannabees.
- espadrine 4y ago> A black box detector that similar to a trained drug dog will bark on command. Absolutely. There is never any description given of the required false positive rate, or the way it will be measured and enforced. A false positive rate of 1% across ~450M people, to find 3M abusers (assuming each abuser averages two victims based on the article’s figures) of which only 1% exchange images insecurely, would mean that 0.8% of detections would be valid. The police cannot chase 125 dead ends for a single arrest; they just don’t have that kind of budget. They already give up on finding bike thieves even when the bikes are GPS’ed within town, and that would have a much higher probability of success per investigation.