4 ms·

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 forc

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
  If my phone got stolen, the police would be investigating the person who stole it. Inventing outlandish scenarios isn't really a good argument here.
  - mayoi 4y ago
gloppers 4y ago
I don't agree that having a CSAM detection algorithm running in your messaging client is a violation of privacy. If it detects something and alerts the relevant authorities, there will then be a proportional reduction of privacy while they investigate, but this is true of any criminal investigation. Doing it this way strikes a reasonable balance. Other alternatives include doing nothing at all, or sending a copy of all private communications to a third party - neither of which are desirable.
- 7373737373 4y ago
  Do you not feel that your devices should wholly act in your interest, instead of possibly falsely accusing you of crimes? Would you want to have your devices and the state spying on you in a way that you can't introspect or control? Or unable to oppose, should its usage be extended to other domains? What about the presumption of innocence? Why trust the executive without judicial oversight? What if they use their powers illegally, or misuse the files they receive? What if they are hacked? You will never know what happens in the black box.

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
If my phone got stolen, the police would be investigating the person who stole it. Inventing outlandish scenarios isn't really a good argument here.
- mayoi 4y ago

gloppers 4y ago

I don't agree that having a CSAM detection algorithm running in your messaging client is a violation of privacy. If it detects something and alerts the relevant authorities, there will then be a proportional reduction of privacy while they investigate, but this is true of any criminal investigation. Doing it this way strikes a reasonable balance. Other alternatives include doing nothing at all, or sending a copy of all private communications to a third party - neither of which are desirable.

7373737373 4y ago
Do you not feel that your devices should wholly act in your interest, instead of possibly falsely accusing you of crimes? Would you want to have your devices and the state spying on you in a way that you can't introspect or control? Or unable to oppose, should its usage be extended to other domains? What about the presumption of innocence? Why trust the executive without judicial oversight? What if they use their powers illegally, or misuse the files they receive? What if they are hacked? You will never know what happens in the black box.