3 ms·

> Her television interview […] Channel 4 News segment: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 The MP, Dami

> Her television interview […] Channel 4 News segment: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 The MP, Damian Collins, "who formerly served as a junior Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Collins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Collins Reminder: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Thanks very much for posting that interview. I thought it was good (and honestly impressed that it was quite respectful communication all the way around, as opposed to so often what I see as "debates" on TV), but I admit I got super frustrated to the point I could only watch half of it because nobody wanted to clearly admit to the other side's quite obvious point. I think the Signal president was making great points, but she definitely was avoiding a clear response when asked about "If people are sharing CSAM on your platform, you wouldn't know about it, correct?" and "If people are violating your ToS, how would you enforce that?" Obviously, the clearest direct answer is "Correct, we would have no way of knowing what content is being shared on our service." She complained about "circling the drain on the issue", but the reason they were circling is that she didn't want to say that sentence. And I get it, in today's day and age news organizations love to take a quote out of context and make it the headline ("Signal president admits they can't enforce their ToS against illegal material!!") But debates like this are a waste of time when both sides refuse to admit the obvious implications of the other side's points: 1. The Signal president was making very clear there is no "halfway" encryption, that it either works or it doesn't, and the bill required a back door. The government minister was pretending and talking loads of BS about what "options the regulator has", even while conceding the point that you can't have a backdoor that only "the good guys" can use. What an exercise in cognitive dissonance. 2. The Signal president obviously knew "Yes, people can share CSAM on our service and we can't directly know about that content", but (and I think for good reasons) didn't want to say that obvious point out loud. This debate would make more sense if both sides would just admit there is no "halfway compromise" to this issue. I agree with another comment that Apple really fucked up by thinking their "fingerprinting" approach was technically viable, and that somewhat poisoned the well in this debate.
- cmiles74 3y ago
  The marketing around this issue is problematic and it's keeping people from clearly discussing the issues. The authors of the UK bill chose to focus on CSAM _specifically_ so that they could hamstring the debate. That so much of the interview focused on "terms of service", generally understood to be something so technical that most people don't even read them and likely unenforceable in court should be a warning sign to us all. I believe Meredith Wittaker was correct to avoid addressing the Signal TOS and how it is implemented. This would open the door to the whole "client-side CSAM scanning" (chat control) discussion which would be even more tedious. https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/13/clientside_scanning_csam_anderson/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/13/clientside_scanning_c...
- Summershard 3y ago
  You've said it yourself why they wouldn't want to say those things, and yet you expected them to say them. Forcing your opponent to say things that will be cherry picked by the media is a common tactic, and one very hard to defend yourself against. Yes, I agree it would have been best if they had just agreed on some compromise to the matter. I don't believe they ever would, though.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

Thanks very much for posting that interview. I thought it was good (and honestly impressed that it was quite respectful communication all the way around, as opposed to so often what I see as "debates" on TV), but I admit I got super frustrated to the point I could only watch half of it because nobody wanted to clearly admit to the other side's quite obvious point. I think the Signal president was making great points, but she definitely was avoiding a clear response when asked about "If people are sharing CSAM on your platform, you wouldn't know about it, correct?" and "If people are violating your ToS, how would you enforce that?" Obviously, the clearest direct answer is "Correct, we would have no way of knowing what content is being shared on our service." She complained about "circling the drain on the issue", but the reason they were circling is that she didn't want to say that sentence. And I get it, in today's day and age news organizations love to take a quote out of context and make it the headline ("Signal president admits they can't enforce their ToS against illegal material!!") But debates like this are a waste of time when both sides refuse to admit the obvious implications of the other side's points: 1. The Signal president was making very clear there is no "halfway" encryption, that it either works or it doesn't, and the bill required a back door. The government minister was pretending and talking loads of BS about what "options the regulator has", even while conceding the point that you can't have a backdoor that only "the good guys" can use. What an exercise in cognitive dissonance. 2. The Signal president obviously knew "Yes, people can share CSAM on our service and we can't directly know about that content", but (and I think for good reasons) didn't want to say that obvious point out loud. This debate would make more sense if both sides would just admit there is no "halfway compromise" to this issue. I agree with another comment that Apple really fucked up by thinking their "fingerprinting" approach was technically viable, and that somewhat poisoned the well in this debate.

cmiles74 3y ago
The marketing around this issue is problematic and it's keeping people from clearly discussing the issues. The authors of the UK bill chose to focus on CSAM _specifically_ so that they could hamstring the debate. That so much of the interview focused on "terms of service", generally understood to be something so technical that most people don't even read them and likely unenforceable in court should be a warning sign to us all. I believe Meredith Wittaker was correct to avoid addressing the Signal TOS and how it is implemented. This would open the door to the whole "client-side CSAM scanning" (chat control) discussion which would be even more tedious. https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/13/clientside_scanning_csam_anderson/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/13/clientside_scanning_c...
Summershard 3y ago
You've said it yourself why they wouldn't want to say those things, and yet you expected them to say them. Forcing your opponent to say things that will be cherry picked by the media is a common tactic, and one very hard to defend yourself against. Yes, I agree it would have been best if they had just agreed on some compromise to the matter. I don't believe they ever would, though.