4 ms·

You can apply this argument against pretty much anything: theft, murder, sexual assault, general twatery, etc. because in the end almost every crime or other un

by arp242 3y ago

You can apply this argument against pretty much anything: theft, murder, sexual assault, general twatery, etc. because in the end almost every crime or other undesirable behaviour is a "human problem". Almost no one would disagree that removing all instances of CSAM from the internet would be a good thing, whether it's a "human problem" or not. That's not really the issue. Things like "how much we'd need to restrict and monitor everyone's internet activity" is the problem: it's all very complex and probably not worth the cost.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> You can apply this argument against pretty much anything: theft, murder, sexual assault, general twatery, etc. because in the end almost every crime or other undesirable behaviour is a "human problem". Exactly? None of them are tech problems, they all predate the tech and so do the solutions. The police do ordinary policework, arrest the criminals and they're convicted of their crimes. Mass surveillance is a dangerous power grab regardless of the purported rationale.
- arp242 3y ago
  The argument is "it's not worth the trade-off, because the downsides are [X]". This is a profoundly different argument than "we should never under any circumstances use any technology to prevent anything because 'it's not a tech a tech problem' and/or 'it predates tech'". Merely "X predates Y" is a worthless argument that can be applied to almost everything (accidents predate cars, murder predates guns, war predates ICBMs, etc. etc.)
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    The point is not that we're using tech to prevent something. The internet does not prevent pr0n, after all. But that you can't treat a human problem as if it was a tech problem merely because the tech allows it to happen easier. My point was that the underlying problem is that some people want to look at porn instead of work. That's the problem we have to solve. The internet is just a symptom, it allows those people to pretend to be working while actually looking at porn. The solution is not to cripple everyone's internet access. The solution is to either change the people, or change those people's attitudes, so they don't want to watch porn at work. It's a human problem so it can only be solved in human ways. With CSAM, the problem is not that there's child porn on the internet. The problem is that some people like to abuse children. We need to solve that problem. Monitoring every byte sent over the internet is not going to solve that problem. It's a human problem. We need to work out ways of detecting these people sooner in life and either help them over it, or remove their access to children. I'm not a social worker so I don't know how we'd solve that problem.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The distinction is between the police using technology and the population being subjected to it involuntarily. Fingerprints are a technology. If your fingerprints are on the murder weapon the police can use that as evidence that their suspect is the murderer. That's not the same thing as requiring everyone to be fingerprinted ahead of time.
- watwut 3y ago
  We use quite a lot of tech to mitigate the theft and murder problem. Including stuff like having lamps on the streets in the night. > The police do ordinary policework, arrest the criminals and they're convicted of their crimes. Only around 54% of murders are solved by police. Other crimes have lower clearance rates.
  - snowpid 3y ago
    which country? which source?
    - watwut 3y ago
      I googled it for United States.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > We use quite a lot of tech to mitigate the theft and murder problem. Including stuff like having lamps on the streets in the night. These are not required by law, or if they are they shouldn't be. > Only around 54% of murders are solved by police. This is quite sufficient to provide an effective deterrent. If someone is willing to take a 54% chance of a murder conviction then you weren't going to deter them with a 59% chance of one.
    - watwut 3y ago
      Lamps on streets happen to be mandated. The clearance rates for other crimes are even lower, no it is not some kind of super effective deterrent. Police is simply not effective in solving crimes.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        They don't have to be 100% effective. They don't even have to be 10% effective most of the time, because the penalties for most crimes are high enough to make up for it. If you steal $1000 and get away with it 90% of the time and go to jail for two years 10% of the time, your expected value is negative because you can make well over $10,000 in two years by doing honest work instead of prison labor.
deely3 3y ago
Usually you will not be thrown in a jail for having images of arm, or theft, or murder in some folder. Ha, we officially buy videos of murders and theft from big companies and even see these videos on a big screen in groups.
eterps 3y ago
> Almost no one would disagree that removing all instances of CSAM from the internet would be a good thing, whether it's a "human problem" or not. That's not really the issue. Would removing all instances of CSAM from the internet be a good thing if it would lead to an increase in CSA? After all the human problem still exists after removing CSAM.
- arp242 3y ago
  > Would removing all instances of CSAM from the internet be a good thing if it would lead to an increase in CSA? Yes. Even if CSAM would reduce actual abuse (which is a big "IF", last time I looked researched leaned weakly towards that it increased abuse), the argument is essentially a variant of the trolley problem: "we'll let one kid be abused to make the CSAM to save n others". I'm not comfterable with that, especially since alternatives such as cartoons, AI-generated, or just old-fashioned photoshop exist (but whether that's a good thing is debatable, and is rather off-topic here).
  - eterps 3y ago
    > AI-generated, or just old-fashioned photoshop exist Aren't those considered CSAM as well? At least as far as the EU Chat Control proposal is concerned? BTW, you raise an interesting point about the argument being a variant of the trolley problem.
    - arp242 3y ago
      I don't know what the EU chat law thinks of that, I'd have to read the law[1], but no child was abused so it's not CSAM under a "common sense" definition. [1]: The definition that the law uses is in Directive 2011/93. In a very quick check it probably would be considered CSAM, but I'd have to read the entire thing to be sure: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011L0093#d1e516-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
      - pseudalopex 3y ago

by arp242 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> You can apply this argument against pretty much anything: theft, murder, sexual assault, general twatery, etc. because in the end almost every crime or other undesirable behaviour is a "human problem". Exactly? None of them are tech problems, they all predate the tech and so do the solutions. The police do ordinary policework, arrest the criminals and they're convicted of their crimes. Mass surveillance is a dangerous power grab regardless of the purported rationale.

arp242 3y ago
The argument is "it's not worth the trade-off, because the downsides are [X]". This is a profoundly different argument than "we should never under any circumstances use any technology to prevent anything because 'it's not a tech a tech problem' and/or 'it predates tech'". Merely "X predates Y" is a worthless argument that can be applied to almost everything (accidents predate cars, murder predates guns, war predates ICBMs, etc. etc.)
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  The point is not that we're using tech to prevent something. The internet does not prevent pr0n, after all. But that you can't treat a human problem as if it was a tech problem merely because the tech allows it to happen easier. My point was that the underlying problem is that some people want to look at porn instead of work. That's the problem we have to solve. The internet is just a symptom, it allows those people to pretend to be working while actually looking at porn. The solution is not to cripple everyone's internet access. The solution is to either change the people, or change those people's attitudes, so they don't want to watch porn at work. It's a human problem so it can only be solved in human ways. With CSAM, the problem is not that there's child porn on the internet. The problem is that some people like to abuse children. We need to solve that problem. Monitoring every byte sent over the internet is not going to solve that problem. It's a human problem. We need to work out ways of detecting these people sooner in life and either help them over it, or remove their access to children. I'm not a social worker so I don't know how we'd solve that problem.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The distinction is between the police using technology and the population being subjected to it involuntarily. Fingerprints are a technology. If your fingerprints are on the murder weapon the police can use that as evidence that their suspect is the murderer. That's not the same thing as requiring everyone to be fingerprinted ahead of time.
watwut 3y ago
We use quite a lot of tech to mitigate the theft and murder problem. Including stuff like having lamps on the streets in the night. > The police do ordinary policework, arrest the criminals and they're convicted of their crimes. Only around 54% of murders are solved by police. Other crimes have lower clearance rates.
- snowpid 3y ago
  which country? which source?
  - watwut 3y ago
    I googled it for United States.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > We use quite a lot of tech to mitigate the theft and murder problem. Including stuff like having lamps on the streets in the night. These are not required by law, or if they are they shouldn't be. > Only around 54% of murders are solved by police. This is quite sufficient to provide an effective deterrent. If someone is willing to take a 54% chance of a murder conviction then you weren't going to deter them with a 59% chance of one.
  - watwut 3y ago
    Lamps on streets happen to be mandated. The clearance rates for other crimes are even lower, no it is not some kind of super effective deterrent. Police is simply not effective in solving crimes.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      They don't have to be 100% effective. They don't even have to be 10% effective most of the time, because the penalties for most crimes are high enough to make up for it. If you steal $1000 and get away with it 90% of the time and go to jail for two years 10% of the time, your expected value is negative because you can make well over $10,000 in two years by doing honest work instead of prison labor.

deely3 3y ago

Usually you will not be thrown in a jail for having images of arm, or theft, or murder in some folder. Ha, we officially buy videos of murders and theft from big companies and even see these videos on a big screen in groups.

eterps 3y ago

> Almost no one would disagree that removing all instances of CSAM from the internet would be a good thing, whether it's a "human problem" or not. That's not really the issue. Would removing all instances of CSAM from the internet be a good thing if it would lead to an increase in CSA? After all the human problem still exists after removing CSAM.

arp242 3y ago
> Would removing all instances of CSAM from the internet be a good thing if it would lead to an increase in CSA? Yes. Even if CSAM would reduce actual abuse (which is a big "IF", last time I looked researched leaned weakly towards that it increased abuse), the argument is essentially a variant of the trolley problem: "we'll let one kid be abused to make the CSAM to save n others". I'm not comfterable with that, especially since alternatives such as cartoons, AI-generated, or just old-fashioned photoshop exist (but whether that's a good thing is debatable, and is rather off-topic here).
- eterps 3y ago
  > AI-generated, or just old-fashioned photoshop exist Aren't those considered CSAM as well? At least as far as the EU Chat Control proposal is concerned? BTW, you raise an interesting point about the argument being a variant of the trolley problem.
  - arp242 3y ago
    I don't know what the EU chat law thinks of that, I'd have to read the law[1], but no child was abused so it's not CSAM under a "common sense" definition. [1]: The definition that the law uses is in Directive 2011/93. In a very quick check it probably would be considered CSAM, but I'd have to read the entire thing to be sure: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011L0093#d1e516-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
    - pseudalopex 3y ago