3 ms·

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 circumst

by 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.

by arp242 3y ago

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.