6 ms·

I’d argue their attempts at having a plan for CSAM were preempting these exact types of arguments being made in bad faith by governments like the UK, who are ac

I’d argue their attempts at having a plan for CSAM were preempting these exact types of arguments being made in bad faith by governments like the UK, who are actively engaging children’s charities to give their goal of breaking e2ee have some emotional societal weight.

camhart 3y ago
CSAM is a real problem. Its not merely emotional weight.
- mikestew 3y ago
  I don’t believe that anyone is saying that it isn’t. That doesn’t preclude the government from preventing a “real problem” going to waste.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  > give their goal of breaking e2ee have some emotional societal weight. Breaking E2EE is their goal. CSAM is the McGuffin.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  Can your elaborate on your trigger here? Why did you feel that the phrasing minimized it enough to miss the point?
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I don’t read their comment as particularly triggered, but if you honestly think they were triggered by a reference to CSAM, this is a wildly inappropriate question to ask. In general I think it is better to not project some emotional reading onto other people’s posts.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      still don't get it, is this one of those things I'll magically be attuned to if I become a parent (but only maybe?), or does it require personal experience? or is there anything I can read about
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        Generally “triggered” is used to describe the recall of previous traumatic experiences, i.e, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger So it is obvious why somebody wouldn’t ask for more details on that sort of thing, right? Maybe you are just using it to ask why they are annoyed, and weren’t aware of the specific definition that phrase?
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        People have definitely diluted the word trigger, and it is impossible to tell the difference between someone referencing a traumatic experience or something akin to annoyance or being distracted. 'Triggered my anxiety' where anxiety is also diluted to 'something I would prefer not to deal with'. In this case, it seemed like the phrasing was enough to distract them from a discussion that didnt need to be derailed
        bee_rider 3y ago
        Since you didn’t give any indication that you were using the “diluted” meaning, I’d say it is more accurate to say that you miscommunicated, rather than that anyone got distracted.
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        Okay I’ll take it I was curious about why they felt compelled to take the thread that direction when the meaning was clear. They felt CSAM was being minimized when that was a red herring to the discussion.
      - kemayo 3y ago
  - shapefrog 3y ago
    Can your elaborate on your trigger here? Was it someone daring to suggest that molesting a 3 year old is actually bad, like really bad?
  - deelowe 3y ago
    It is inappropriate to ask someone about their trigger in such contexts. Why would you expect someone to go into details on past traumas like this?
    - MarcoZavala 3y ago
      [dead]
    - themitigating 3y ago
      If they are using their experience to advocate for changes that affect me then they should justify it
      - deelowe 3y ago
        Justification wasn't requested. Elaborating on their "trigger" was. Again, this is abhorrent. No one should be required to go into details about being sexually assaulted as a means of "justification."
- Al0neStar 3y ago
  CSAM has nothing to do with encryption and it predates the internet. https://youtu.be/aAeUeG-PTD0 https://youtu.be/aAeUeG-PTD0
  - lost_tourist 3y ago
    There is some overlap, since you can't do a CSAM scan on properly encrypted data. It is not completely separate in a modern context of what is going on with IT.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Of course. But that emotional weight is very often cynically used in order to get people to go along with things they consider unacceptable.
  - camhart 3y ago
    I understand your argument, and I appreciate it. The same could be said of of the "other side" of this argument though. The "government will spy on you!"--is also emotional weight cynically being used to get people to go along with technical solutions that support CSAM. I'd argue society would generally agree CSAM is unacceptable and we're allowing it right now. Many are quick to adopt the assumption that this law is an intentional and cleverly designed "attack on our rights to e2ee", as fact. If one can't recognize it's at least a poor attempt to balance the right to privacy with protecting kids, then I struggle to see how they're being honest with themselves. I'm not arguing this law proposes the correct solution that should be adopted. I'm not arguing the surveillance state isn't licking their chops. I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise. It's also wrong and harmful to attribute motive based on assumptions. While you haven't done this, many others have. Instead of taking part in a constructive debate by arguing specific points, they try to paint a false motive on the opposition. "it's just so they can spy on you!" is roughly equivalent to "you view CSAM and that's why you don't want to protect our kids". These approaches are not how you reach a good solution that balances both sides of the argument. They're just throwing the oppositions legitimate concerns under the bus. I'd also add, while e2ee is strong, unless you're verifying and compiling all the code you run on your device yourself, Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. I assume the bar to snoop on someone would most likely be lowered if laws like this are passed. But it's still technically possible (and likely happens).
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise. Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though. > Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. Absolutely. Not only can they, but they do.
- MarcoZavala 3y ago
  [dead]
- cabalamat 3y ago
  >CSAM is a real problem. It's is not nearly as big a problem as states wanting to oppress people.
  - causality0 3y ago
    Right. I don't think people realize there is no such thing as a free lunch. Having something, in this case a free society, means making a tradeoff. The dials on safety, happiness, and freedom cannot all be at 100 percent at the same time, and it is far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that even the tiniest bit of safety is worth a huge amount of freedom in exchange.
    - andrei_says_ 3y ago
      Well, it’s a well-designed trap carefully constructed to have the strongest possible effects on our lizard brains. Maybe there are ways to check our governments’ true commitment to safety in multiple areas and draw conclusions? Environmental protection (we live in a period of climate collapse)? Food safety (sugar industry controlling legislation etc.)? Weapon licensing? Access to healthcare services and life-saving medications like insulin? Healthcare and social services for mothers and young children? Preferring diplomacy to aggression and acts of destabilization in politics? Looking at all of this I conclude that, sadly, our governments don’t seem to care much about our or our children’s safety. Looking at the efforts politicians put into staying into power and acting on personal or corruption-driven agendas… we’re not in great shape and I have the feeling that there may be some manipulation going on with intention to disrupt organizing, personal privacy, and the ability of individuals to communicate without being surveilled. All authoritarian governments absolutely hate that - for reasons having nothing to do with the safety of their citizens.

camhart 3y ago

CSAM is a real problem. Its not merely emotional weight.

mikestew 3y ago
I don’t believe that anyone is saying that it isn’t. That doesn’t preclude the government from preventing a “real problem” going to waste.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
> give their goal of breaking e2ee have some emotional societal weight. Breaking E2EE is their goal. CSAM is the McGuffin.
yieldcrv 3y ago
Can your elaborate on your trigger here? Why did you feel that the phrasing minimized it enough to miss the point?
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I don’t read their comment as particularly triggered, but if you honestly think they were triggered by a reference to CSAM, this is a wildly inappropriate question to ask. In general I think it is better to not project some emotional reading onto other people’s posts.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    still don't get it, is this one of those things I'll magically be attuned to if I become a parent (but only maybe?), or does it require personal experience? or is there anything I can read about
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Generally “triggered” is used to describe the recall of previous traumatic experiences, i.e, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger So it is obvious why somebody wouldn’t ask for more details on that sort of thing, right? Maybe you are just using it to ask why they are annoyed, and weren’t aware of the specific definition that phrase?
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        People have definitely diluted the word trigger, and it is impossible to tell the difference between someone referencing a traumatic experience or something akin to annoyance or being distracted. 'Triggered my anxiety' where anxiety is also diluted to 'something I would prefer not to deal with'. In this case, it seemed like the phrasing was enough to distract them from a discussion that didnt need to be derailed
        bee_rider 3y ago
        Since you didn’t give any indication that you were using the “diluted” meaning, I’d say it is more accurate to say that you miscommunicated, rather than that anyone got distracted.
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        Okay I’ll take it I was curious about why they felt compelled to take the thread that direction when the meaning was clear. They felt CSAM was being minimized when that was a red herring to the discussion.
    - kemayo 3y ago
- shapefrog 3y ago
  Can your elaborate on your trigger here? Was it someone daring to suggest that molesting a 3 year old is actually bad, like really bad?
- deelowe 3y ago
  It is inappropriate to ask someone about their trigger in such contexts. Why would you expect someone to go into details on past traumas like this?
  - MarcoZavala 3y ago
    [dead]
  - themitigating 3y ago
    If they are using their experience to advocate for changes that affect me then they should justify it
    - deelowe 3y ago
      Justification wasn't requested. Elaborating on their "trigger" was. Again, this is abhorrent. No one should be required to go into details about being sexually assaulted as a means of "justification."
Al0neStar 3y ago
CSAM has nothing to do with encryption and it predates the internet. https://youtu.be/aAeUeG-PTD0 https://youtu.be/aAeUeG-PTD0
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  There is some overlap, since you can't do a CSAM scan on properly encrypted data. It is not completely separate in a modern context of what is going on with IT.
JohnFen 3y ago
Of course. But that emotional weight is very often cynically used in order to get people to go along with things they consider unacceptable.
- camhart 3y ago
  I understand your argument, and I appreciate it. The same could be said of of the "other side" of this argument though. The "government will spy on you!"--is also emotional weight cynically being used to get people to go along with technical solutions that support CSAM. I'd argue society would generally agree CSAM is unacceptable and we're allowing it right now. Many are quick to adopt the assumption that this law is an intentional and cleverly designed "attack on our rights to e2ee", as fact. If one can't recognize it's at least a poor attempt to balance the right to privacy with protecting kids, then I struggle to see how they're being honest with themselves. I'm not arguing this law proposes the correct solution that should be adopted. I'm not arguing the surveillance state isn't licking their chops. I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise. It's also wrong and harmful to attribute motive based on assumptions. While you haven't done this, many others have. Instead of taking part in a constructive debate by arguing specific points, they try to paint a false motive on the opposition. "it's just so they can spy on you!" is roughly equivalent to "you view CSAM and that's why you don't want to protect our kids". These approaches are not how you reach a good solution that balances both sides of the argument. They're just throwing the oppositions legitimate concerns under the bus. I'd also add, while e2ee is strong, unless you're verifying and compiling all the code you run on your device yourself, Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. I assume the bar to snoop on someone would most likely be lowered if laws like this are passed. But it's still technically possible (and likely happens).
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise. Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though. > Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. Absolutely. Not only can they, but they do.
MarcoZavala 3y ago
[dead]
cabalamat 3y ago
>CSAM is a real problem. It's is not nearly as big a problem as states wanting to oppress people.
- causality0 3y ago
  Right. I don't think people realize there is no such thing as a free lunch. Having something, in this case a free society, means making a tradeoff. The dials on safety, happiness, and freedom cannot all be at 100 percent at the same time, and it is far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that even the tiniest bit of safety is worth a huge amount of freedom in exchange.
  - andrei_says_ 3y ago
    Well, it’s a well-designed trap carefully constructed to have the strongest possible effects on our lizard brains. Maybe there are ways to check our governments’ true commitment to safety in multiple areas and draw conclusions? Environmental protection (we live in a period of climate collapse)? Food safety (sugar industry controlling legislation etc.)? Weapon licensing? Access to healthcare services and life-saving medications like insulin? Healthcare and social services for mothers and young children? Preferring diplomacy to aggression and acts of destabilization in politics? Looking at all of this I conclude that, sadly, our governments don’t seem to care much about our or our children’s safety. Looking at the efforts politicians put into staying into power and acting on personal or corruption-driven agendas… we’re not in great shape and I have the feeling that there may be some manipulation going on with intention to disrupt organizing, personal privacy, and the ability of individuals to communicate without being surveilled. All authoritarian governments absolutely hate that - for reasons having nothing to do with the safety of their citizens.