4 ms·

Classic police work? Social engineering, infiltrators, targeted surveillance, teachers/doctors/social services reporting to the police signs of child abuse (tha

Classic police work? Social engineering, infiltrators, targeted surveillance, teachers/doctors/social services reporting to the police signs of child abuse (that's what we're actually trying to prevent, not jpegs)? You are implying that the current approach isn't a "solution" because it doesn't catch everything. Plenty of people are convicted of CSAM possession/distribution/production without mandatory government scanning of all communication. Unless your tolerance for CSAM/murder/rape is literally zero, in which case we will all live in solitary prisons because that is the only way "solve" this "perfectly". You can keep asking "what is a better solution", for any crime, until we have literally no rights left.

omginternets 3y ago
Not that I disagree with you, but you're allowing the narrative to shift away from "government involvement in private correspondence is a hallmark of totalitarianism" and instead go towards "government involvement in private correspondence may be the most effective way to combat CSAM". IMO, the correct answer to this question is "do you think it's appropriate to spy on everyone to fight crime?"
- SenAnder 3y ago
  They already spy on everyone. Private companies that gather information, such as through embedded ads, will sell it to anyone, cell phone towers triangulate your location, gather call metadata, license plate readers track where you drive, facial recognition on the off chance you're not in your car and without your cell phone, etc etc.. This is about taking away your right to even try to evade even more intrusive spying, despite how much better their ability to spy even without such laws has gotten (instead they publicly claim there's a "going dark" problem).
  - omginternets 3y ago
    Yes, we're on the same page :)
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      It's important to be precise - this is not an expansion of government capability, this is a prohibition on how citizens may act to protect their privacy.
      - omginternets 3y ago
        I think I was fairly precise. I just think the question that we should focus on is "do you think this is appropriate behavior for a government?" Your distinction between adding a new capability vs prohibition is captured in that quesetion.
        wkat4242 3y ago
        How are they going to prevent people bypassing it though? The only way I see that can work is a complete ban on open general-purpose computing.
        omginternets 3y ago
        Bypassing what, sorry?
        wkat4242 3y ago
        The on-device scan of course. It'll have to be embedded in the OS so it means you won't be able to run FOSS as you can simply remove the spyware then. Or, if it's done in each app, they'll want to forbid you from sideloading. Ironically that's exactly the thing the EU is forcing Apple to enable now. Most likely they'll do some kind of evil attestation before you're allowed online, the same way Google is planning to put in Chrome with WEI to stop adblockers.
        petre 3y ago
        The EU passed NIS2 cybersecurity directive which establishes a certification framework for ICT products and services. This is how they could push CSAM: make it a requirement in the certification process for a certain class of products and services. If a given product or service fails to pass the cert, it might not be legal to sell it in the EU. https://certification.enisa.europa.eu https://certification.enisa.europa.eu This would also stifle innovation, create more bureaucracy and a market for paper pushing consulting companies, raise the bar for small companies who can't afford certification expenses, degrade the time to market of ICT producs and freeze ICT products and services in their current state as to not trigger re-certification.
- x-complexity 3y ago
  > IMO, the correct answer to this question is "do you think it's appropriate to spy on everyone to fight crime?" To answer in the most direct way possible: No. No. NO. Regardless of the intentions, the violation of personal privacy dictates a totalitarian society wherein ALL "deviant" behavior will be monitored & dealt with. That includes LGBTQ+ activities & ethnic minorities. To put it to the absolute test: Would you be okay if the German SS was able to use mass surveillance for their own version of "fighting crime"? The answer to this question will dictate the answer to the extreme scenario that the State always trends towards, wherein more & more power is accumulated by the State under the guise of safety & security.

omginternets 3y ago

Not that I disagree with you, but you're allowing the narrative to shift away from "government involvement in private correspondence is a hallmark of totalitarianism" and instead go towards "government involvement in private correspondence may be the most effective way to combat CSAM". IMO, the correct answer to this question is "do you think it's appropriate to spy on everyone to fight crime?"

SenAnder 3y ago
They already spy on everyone. Private companies that gather information, such as through embedded ads, will sell it to anyone, cell phone towers triangulate your location, gather call metadata, license plate readers track where you drive, facial recognition on the off chance you're not in your car and without your cell phone, etc etc.. This is about taking away your right to even try to evade even more intrusive spying, despite how much better their ability to spy even without such laws has gotten (instead they publicly claim there's a "going dark" problem).
- omginternets 3y ago
  Yes, we're on the same page :)
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    It's important to be precise - this is not an expansion of government capability, this is a prohibition on how citizens may act to protect their privacy.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      I think I was fairly precise. I just think the question that we should focus on is "do you think this is appropriate behavior for a government?" Your distinction between adding a new capability vs prohibition is captured in that quesetion.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        How are they going to prevent people bypassing it though? The only way I see that can work is a complete ban on open general-purpose computing.
        omginternets 3y ago
        Bypassing what, sorry?
        wkat4242 3y ago
        The on-device scan of course. It'll have to be embedded in the OS so it means you won't be able to run FOSS as you can simply remove the spyware then. Or, if it's done in each app, they'll want to forbid you from sideloading. Ironically that's exactly the thing the EU is forcing Apple to enable now. Most likely they'll do some kind of evil attestation before you're allowed online, the same way Google is planning to put in Chrome with WEI to stop adblockers.
        petre 3y ago
        The EU passed NIS2 cybersecurity directive which establishes a certification framework for ICT products and services. This is how they could push CSAM: make it a requirement in the certification process for a certain class of products and services. If a given product or service fails to pass the cert, it might not be legal to sell it in the EU. https://certification.enisa.europa.eu https://certification.enisa.europa.eu This would also stifle innovation, create more bureaucracy and a market for paper pushing consulting companies, raise the bar for small companies who can't afford certification expenses, degrade the time to market of ICT producs and freeze ICT products and services in their current state as to not trigger re-certification.
x-complexity 3y ago
> IMO, the correct answer to this question is "do you think it's appropriate to spy on everyone to fight crime?" To answer in the most direct way possible: No. No. NO. Regardless of the intentions, the violation of personal privacy dictates a totalitarian society wherein ALL "deviant" behavior will be monitored & dealt with. That includes LGBTQ+ activities & ethnic minorities. To put it to the absolute test: Would you be okay if the German SS was able to use mass surveillance for their own version of "fighting crime"? The answer to this question will dictate the answer to the extreme scenario that the State always trends towards, wherein more & more power is accumulated by the State under the guise of safety & security.