5 ms·

That old adage "if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear" is oft berated in these sort of discussions, but it really does apply here. This regula

That old adage "if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear" is oft berated in these sort of discussions, but it really does apply here. This regulation is for the purposes of criminal investigation into serious harms against children, not for spying on whatever innocuous messages you happen to be sharing with friends and family. The privacy fears are being way overblown for us ordinary people. Paedophiles, on the other hand, do not deserve privacy. They need to be scrutinised their entire lives to keep children - the targets of their vile depravity - from harm. I support this regulation; every parent should.

mayoi 4y ago
- gloppers 4y ago
  No need to be so rude. From the law enforcement side, that is the system working as it should - the police investigated and cleared him of any wrongdoing. That Google can close someone's account for any reason and without any recourse is a wider issue, and one separate to this EU regulation.
  - dathinab 4y ago
    > and one separate to this EU regulation. no, not separated at all laws have to take the implicit effects they have into account they could have added a clause to require providers to not close the account until the police investigation finishes. They didn't. Which means they are implicitly partial responsible for such abuse.
    - gloppers 4y ago
      That is a broader consumer rights issue which, I agree, the EU should do something about too. But adding a clause to this regulation would not solve that wider problem.
      - dathinab 4y ago
        yes, but it would make this law less worse
  - 7373737373 4y ago
    Give me access to yours and your childrens' phones, I suspect that you or one of them may be a pedophile. Don't want to? Too bad, here is the law that says that I can get it all anyway. Don't worry, I'm a good programmer, I won't see it myself, I'll let one of my algorithms do it for me (I can't tell you how it works though, since you may use that information to hide something from me)! I pinky promise that neither I nor the other strangers viewing your or your childrens photos are pedophiles! Is that the world you want to live in? Why should everyone suddenly have to trust the discretion of complete strangers?
    - gloppers 4y ago
      Yes that sounds fine to me. We have specially trained police in this category of crimes, for good reason. I trust them to investigate fairly and proportionately. If we cast aside the hyperbole and look at the actual details of what is being proposed in this regulation, it's clear they're taking a decent and reasonable approach here.
      - 7373737373 4y ago
        And you think that the potential capture of a few criminals outweighs the violation of privacy of communications of 450 million humans? You'd be okay with forcing this onto people who don't want this, and the majority who won't even know that this is happening?
        mayoi 4y ago
        Yes, he'd be okay with it, he has nothing to hide after all, not even the fact that his phone got stolen and was used to send bomb threats to 30 nearest hospitals, then destroyed, in the area where he lives with court ruling that he's guilty + getting extra time for destroying all evidence. Literally NOONE would ever do such a thing, it's not like criminals already communicate using stolen devices and even buy things using stolen credit cards. There's simply NO WAY.
        gloppers 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    So literally Google unilaterally decided, based on a "suspicion" that any human being would have immediately found to be bogus, to forward _all_ of his private, personal photos to the authorities, and you think that here "the system is working as it should"? What type of expectation of privacy can you have under this system ?
  - mayoi 4y ago
    Law enforcement acknowledging the fact that he did nothing wrong won't fix the fact that he lost a lot of time and probably braincells because of the stress induced by something completely retarded that should've never happened. Now go ahead and send a SWAT team to my house, because I have a real photo of a naked baby in an album in one of my coffers, lets ignore for a moment that it was taken by my mother when I was a baby, and I guess by your standards, it's called "CSAM" or something equally retarded.
dathinab 4y ago
It doesn't apply at all. If you get accidentally flagged as criminal it can easily destroy your live, without a years log curt case you might never get properly un-flagged even if you are innocent but then the damage is more then just done. Worse after wards the chance to again be attacked when you are innocent aren't that small because even if you get un-flagged the system is most likely remembering that you had been flagged once. At least in similar cases involving police this is not uncommon. You might literally end up in a situation with the state forcefully taking your child away because you send pictures to a doctor to ask if idk. some rash is dangerous. Even if it get's resolved it will traumatize your child, and likely you, too. There are many ways to improve the situation with children and the internet, but this isn't a good one I think.
- gloppers 4y ago
  What do you mean "flagged as criminal"? In EU we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. No-one is criminal unless they have been through the process of justice. The scenario you are describing just isn't going to happen. I'm glad that the EU are proposing sensible and proportionate solutions to the thorny issue of paedophiles concealing their depraved activities online. The privacy activists have cried wolf for so long on this one, I think people just aren't buying their arguments any more.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    In the real world, people do in fact get a guilty verdict only to discover the individual wasn't guilty. The scenario described is rare, but what you are advocating for is to overfit at the cost of a few innocents. Which is great, until it happens to you or someone you care for. The world is constantly changing. Law and justice aren't rigid. You never know when you find yourself on the other side with no way of realizing.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    The biggest problem with this is that governments change. Giving them a power forever means every future government will have that power. Current intentions do not matter. Just think about every evil government in history. It wasn't always that way, and it didn't remain that way. When you know that, how can you say something isn't going to happen?
hoseja 4y ago
It's never about the children.
npteljes 4y ago
Criminals WILL have private ways - as long as it's mathematically feasible, which it is. All regulation only affects people other than those who wish to protect their conversations. To illustrate why I think banning widespread privacy is bad, I'd like to quote the US' Miranda Warning. "Anything you say can be used against you in court." And to add: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Therefore - we shouldn't give the system all of the lines.

mayoi 4y ago

gloppers 4y ago
No need to be so rude. From the law enforcement side, that is the system working as it should - the police investigated and cleared him of any wrongdoing. That Google can close someone's account for any reason and without any recourse is a wider issue, and one separate to this EU regulation.
- dathinab 4y ago
  > and one separate to this EU regulation. no, not separated at all laws have to take the implicit effects they have into account they could have added a clause to require providers to not close the account until the police investigation finishes. They didn't. Which means they are implicitly partial responsible for such abuse.
  - gloppers 4y ago
    That is a broader consumer rights issue which, I agree, the EU should do something about too. But adding a clause to this regulation would not solve that wider problem.
    - dathinab 4y ago
      yes, but it would make this law less worse
- 7373737373 4y ago
  Give me access to yours and your childrens' phones, I suspect that you or one of them may be a pedophile. Don't want to? Too bad, here is the law that says that I can get it all anyway. Don't worry, I'm a good programmer, I won't see it myself, I'll let one of my algorithms do it for me (I can't tell you how it works though, since you may use that information to hide something from me)! I pinky promise that neither I nor the other strangers viewing your or your childrens photos are pedophiles! Is that the world you want to live in? Why should everyone suddenly have to trust the discretion of complete strangers?
  - gloppers 4y ago
    Yes that sounds fine to me. We have specially trained police in this category of crimes, for good reason. I trust them to investigate fairly and proportionately. If we cast aside the hyperbole and look at the actual details of what is being proposed in this regulation, it's clear they're taking a decent and reasonable approach here.
    - 7373737373 4y ago
      And you think that the potential capture of a few criminals outweighs the violation of privacy of communications of 450 million humans? You'd be okay with forcing this onto people who don't want this, and the majority who won't even know that this is happening?
      - mayoi 4y ago
        Yes, he'd be okay with it, he has nothing to hide after all, not even the fact that his phone got stolen and was used to send bomb threats to 30 nearest hospitals, then destroyed, in the area where he lives with court ruling that he's guilty + getting extra time for destroying all evidence. Literally NOONE would ever do such a thing, it's not like criminals already communicate using stolen devices and even buy things using stolen credit cards. There's simply NO WAY.
        gloppers 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  So literally Google unilaterally decided, based on a "suspicion" that any human being would have immediately found to be bogus, to forward _all_ of his private, personal photos to the authorities, and you think that here "the system is working as it should"? What type of expectation of privacy can you have under this system ?
- mayoi 4y ago
  Law enforcement acknowledging the fact that he did nothing wrong won't fix the fact that he lost a lot of time and probably braincells because of the stress induced by something completely retarded that should've never happened. Now go ahead and send a SWAT team to my house, because I have a real photo of a naked baby in an album in one of my coffers, lets ignore for a moment that it was taken by my mother when I was a baby, and I guess by your standards, it's called "CSAM" or something equally retarded.

dathinab 4y ago

It doesn't apply at all. If you get accidentally flagged as criminal it can easily destroy your live, without a years log curt case you might never get properly un-flagged even if you are innocent but then the damage is more then just done. Worse after wards the chance to again be attacked when you are innocent aren't that small because even if you get un-flagged the system is most likely remembering that you had been flagged once. At least in similar cases involving police this is not uncommon. You might literally end up in a situation with the state forcefully taking your child away because you send pictures to a doctor to ask if idk. some rash is dangerous. Even if it get's resolved it will traumatize your child, and likely you, too. There are many ways to improve the situation with children and the internet, but this isn't a good one I think.

gloppers 4y ago
What do you mean "flagged as criminal"? In EU we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. No-one is criminal unless they have been through the process of justice. The scenario you are describing just isn't going to happen. I'm glad that the EU are proposing sensible and proportionate solutions to the thorny issue of paedophiles concealing their depraved activities online. The privacy activists have cried wolf for so long on this one, I think people just aren't buying their arguments any more.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  In the real world, people do in fact get a guilty verdict only to discover the individual wasn't guilty. The scenario described is rare, but what you are advocating for is to overfit at the cost of a few innocents. Which is great, until it happens to you or someone you care for. The world is constantly changing. Law and justice aren't rigid. You never know when you find yourself on the other side with no way of realizing.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  The biggest problem with this is that governments change. Giving them a power forever means every future government will have that power. Current intentions do not matter. Just think about every evil government in history. It wasn't always that way, and it didn't remain that way. When you know that, how can you say something isn't going to happen?

hoseja 4y ago

It's never about the children.

npteljes 4y ago

Criminals WILL have private ways - as long as it's mathematically feasible, which it is. All regulation only affects people other than those who wish to protect their conversations. To illustrate why I think banning widespread privacy is bad, I'd like to quote the US' Miranda Warning. "Anything you say can be used against you in court." And to add: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Therefore - we shouldn't give the system all of the lines.