4 ms·

The blog post about the EU proposal is insanely scary. It "boasts" about 88% accuracy in "grooming" and 90% accuracy in new CSAM. And it also has this line, wh

by alexb_ 4y ago

The blog post about the EU proposal is insanely scary. It "boasts" about 88% accuracy in "grooming" and 90% accuracy in new CSAM. And it also has this line, which is just so obviously horrendous: >the proposed obligations on service providers as regards the detection of CSAM are technologically neutral, meaning they do not prescribe which technology should be used for detection as long as the chosen technology meets the high standard of conditions and safeguards to protect all users. It is an obligation of result, not of means. Literally saying "The ends justify the means" when it comes to detecting CSAM. Remember, it NEVER has to do with protecting anyone. Governments do what gives them more power or they are already incentivized to do, and nothing else. And with no voter pressure against these types of laws, it's obvious what will happen. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/johansson/blog/children-deserve-protection-and-privacy_en https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/joha... Here is the link to the blog post.

isaacfrond 4y ago
That is not what technologically neutral means. It means that the EU will not prescribe MS whatever or Google such and such, but that states can choose software themselves, assuming it works good enough (which apparently is not a very high bar to clear in this case).
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  How would you determine efficiency then? This will also only ever apply popular services. No random e2e encrypted messenger will implement this.
account-5 4y ago
> Literally saying "The ends justify the means" when it comes to detecting CSAM... I don't read it like that. My reading of it is that the EU don't care what technology is being used as long as the technology works as prescribed, that is, the result is CSAM detection regardless of the means by which it was detected. I don't read anything in that about government power or government overreach, regardless that these technologies are clearly very intrusive.
bluesign 4y ago
> It "boasts" about 88% accuracy in "grooming" and 90% accuracy in new CSAM Aside from principals, this is actually very nice accuracy technologically.
ihaveajob 4y ago
That seems like an uncharitable read. The phrase "an obligation of result, not of means" simply stating that the regulation doesn't choose a specific methodology, as it only prescribes a standard for its results. It's as if regulations for clinical thermometers require accuracy within a 0.1C margin of error, but manufacturers can choose how the device works, and how to make it. Of course, the scary part is that they would consider an 10% error rate to be OK.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  In what universe should I be charitable to the government?

by alexb_ 4y ago

isaacfrond 4y ago

That is not what technologically neutral means. It means that the EU will not prescribe MS whatever or Google such and such, but that states can choose software themselves, assuming it works good enough (which apparently is not a very high bar to clear in this case).

raxxorraxor 4y ago
How would you determine efficiency then? This will also only ever apply popular services. No random e2e encrypted messenger will implement this.

account-5 4y ago

> Literally saying "The ends justify the means" when it comes to detecting CSAM... I don't read it like that. My reading of it is that the EU don't care what technology is being used as long as the technology works as prescribed, that is, the result is CSAM detection regardless of the means by which it was detected. I don't read anything in that about government power or government overreach, regardless that these technologies are clearly very intrusive.

bluesign 4y ago

> It "boasts" about 88% accuracy in "grooming" and 90% accuracy in new CSAM Aside from principals, this is actually very nice accuracy technologically.

ihaveajob 4y ago

That seems like an uncharitable read. The phrase "an obligation of result, not of means" simply stating that the regulation doesn't choose a specific methodology, as it only prescribes a standard for its results. It's as if regulations for clinical thermometers require accuracy within a 0.1C margin of error, but manufacturers can choose how the device works, and how to make it. Of course, the scary part is that they would consider an 10% error rate to be OK.

alexb_ 4y ago
In what universe should I be charitable to the government?