4 ms·

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 distinct

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.