4 ms·

> the Online Safety Bill has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children. I wish people would acknowledge both sides of the coin instead of simply prete

> the Online Safety Bill has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children. I wish people would acknowledge both sides of the coin instead of simply pretending the other side doesn't exist. Yes society uses surveillance to identify and prosecute criminals (of various ilks, including those who abuse children). If you render that surveillance impossible by construction then people who might previously have been caught will not be. Instead you pretend that the only goal here is am authoritarian state straight from 1984. The risk of the second is one reason not to do it. IMO it's easier to think what happens when you make it easier for people to be blackmailed, manipulated, impersonated, defrauded. But again, that's just an opinion.

cm2187 4y ago
I remember the UK using its anti-terrorist laws to freeze Icelandic banks assets during the financial crisis. There is a probability 1.00 that this will be used for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the pretext used to pass the bill. So it's a pointless exercise to debate about that pretext. The only thing that matters is what right does that give the government?
roenxi 4y ago
Do you think pervasive spying would have made it more or less likely that the Jeffrey Epstein case made it to the public eye? Running a paedophile ring is not some small thing that is easy to hide. In all the cases I've taken note of (in churches, schools, local clubs, etc) the problem is almost never that the crime is unknown, it is that the perpetrators have too many tools to shield themselves from consequences and discredit the victims. In the future, maybe tools like going through people's internet history or planting fake evidence using their online accounts. Society shouldn't use surveillance to identify criminals. We'd look back at dragnets to catch runaway slaves or hunt down the homosexuals with horror (as, indeed, we generally do in states that successfully institute mass surveillance to catch criminals). As recently as a few years ago, 'criminals' were people found outside their own homes and places like China were successfully catching them much to the net loss for everyone. There is a strong - indeed, overwhelming - link between places with good privacy, good protection of freedoms and citizens living happy prosperous lives. The people pushing mass surveillance know all this. It has been bought up every time some bright spark comes up with the idea of rolling out mass surveillance. These people understand the societal consequences that they are ushering in. Too many of them understand what they are doing to pretend they have pure motives. This is empowering the worst of the authoritarians.
cnity 4y ago
If this is the case, why is the issue of child _privacy_ (and the effect of losing it upon passing of this bill) not considered as part of the "concerns" for online safety (and carefully omitted as part of the risk assessment)? This is not some spectrum with safety (but loss of freedom) and danger (with freedom) on each end. The results of this bill will be both less freedom and less safety.
crote 4y ago
30% of child sexual abuse is done by family members. 60% of child sexual abuse is done by acquaintances. 10% is done by strangers, and I am willing to bet that a good fraction is of that is done offline. If we want to protect children, why are we completely ignoring those 90%? Where are the bills mandating installation of cameras in all households with children? If you want to protect children from strangers on the internet, perhaps fund schools so they can properly teach children that the internet can be a dangerous place. Bills like this aren't going to do shit to protect children.
andromeduck 4y ago
It's just like gun control. They're barely enforcing existing laws because of political sensitivities and asking for more power because...?

cm2187 4y ago

I remember the UK using its anti-terrorist laws to freeze Icelandic banks assets during the financial crisis. There is a probability 1.00 that this will be used for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the pretext used to pass the bill. So it's a pointless exercise to debate about that pretext. The only thing that matters is what right does that give the government?

roenxi 4y ago

Do you think pervasive spying would have made it more or less likely that the Jeffrey Epstein case made it to the public eye? Running a paedophile ring is not some small thing that is easy to hide. In all the cases I've taken note of (in churches, schools, local clubs, etc) the problem is almost never that the crime is unknown, it is that the perpetrators have too many tools to shield themselves from consequences and discredit the victims. In the future, maybe tools like going through people's internet history or planting fake evidence using their online accounts. Society shouldn't use surveillance to identify criminals. We'd look back at dragnets to catch runaway slaves or hunt down the homosexuals with horror (as, indeed, we generally do in states that successfully institute mass surveillance to catch criminals). As recently as a few years ago, 'criminals' were people found outside their own homes and places like China were successfully catching them much to the net loss for everyone. There is a strong - indeed, overwhelming - link between places with good privacy, good protection of freedoms and citizens living happy prosperous lives. The people pushing mass surveillance know all this. It has been bought up every time some bright spark comes up with the idea of rolling out mass surveillance. These people understand the societal consequences that they are ushering in. Too many of them understand what they are doing to pretend they have pure motives. This is empowering the worst of the authoritarians.

cnity 4y ago

If this is the case, why is the issue of child _privacy_ (and the effect of losing it upon passing of this bill) not considered as part of the "concerns" for online safety (and carefully omitted as part of the risk assessment)? This is not some spectrum with safety (but loss of freedom) and danger (with freedom) on each end. The results of this bill will be both less freedom and less safety.

crote 4y ago

30% of child sexual abuse is done by family members. 60% of child sexual abuse is done by acquaintances. 10% is done by strangers, and I am willing to bet that a good fraction is of that is done offline. If we want to protect children, why are we completely ignoring those 90%? Where are the bills mandating installation of cameras in all households with children? If you want to protect children from strangers on the internet, perhaps fund schools so they can properly teach children that the internet can be a dangerous place. Bills like this aren't going to do shit to protect children.

andromeduck 4y ago

It's just like gun control. They're barely enforcing existing laws because of political sensitivities and asking for more power because...?