7 ms·

This is an attempt to solve the right problem (CSA) but of course the wrong way. It's like 30 years ago saying "people record such abuse onto VHS tape - if we

This is an attempt to solve the right problem (CSA) but of course the wrong way. It's like 30 years ago saying "people record such abuse onto VHS tape - if we talk to Sony and Scotch we can prevent this in some way". Well actually it is a little more realistic but still ... preventing Child Sexual Abuse should be a huge and high priority for all governments, all citizens. If there was some sure fire guaranteed method we would do it tomorrow, no later the cost We just don't really know how - it is some combination of mental health reform, massive educational reform, child social services reform so that the really at risk kids are treated but also extending that meaningfully to all children. I would be interested in any clever ideas

thfuran 3y ago
>If there was some sure fire guaranteed method we would do it tomorrow, no later the cost No goal is worth pursuing no matter the cost.
rowanG077 3y ago
> If there was some sure fire guaranteed method we would do it tomorrow, no later the cost. That's obviously not true. Here is a simple solution: sterilize as much of humanity as possible. Preferable via an airborne mutagen or something like that. Boom no children to be abused anymore in the span of a few generations.
- thfuran 3y ago
  If you use a sufficiently potent airborne toxin, you'll achieve results even sooner.
  - rowanG077 3y ago
    Well I would argue that killing children is child abuse in itself.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  Or we can use existing tech and solve the problem with global nuclear annihilation.
  - MrYellowP 3y ago
    Or we could create a virus, spread it across the world, invent a new type of vaccine, tell everyone that it helps against the virus but actually slowly kills people leading to an excess death rate nobody officially talks about! Less people, less births, less children, less child abuse! ............ yeah I had to write that one. It fit the chain too well.
WolfeReader 3y ago
>This is an attempt to solve the right problem It really isn't. When a new law or program is announced that is supposedly meant to fight terrorism, child abuse, or drugs - and when the actual scope of the law or program is more than terrorism, child abuse, or drugs, then: You are being manipulated into voting against your interests. 100% of the time.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  We used to know the four horsemen of censorship as Drugs, Terrorism, Child Porn, Money Laundering... You can get whatever you want, just say it's for one of those things. Now... they barely bother and everything is just "for safety".
rootusrootus 3y ago
> It's like 30 years ago saying "people record such abuse onto VHS tape 30 years ago was before the Internet became commonly available, and there was not a lot of talk about CSAM. Hell, the first federal law against it was ... 1984? Why did we not really care about it before then, but now it's a "no matter the cost" problem?
- autoexec 3y ago
  I don't think there was ever time when people didn't think it was a problem, but the focus was more on going after the people abusing children rather then the people passing around recorded evidence of the crime.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    If I remember correctly more focus was on the collectors inciting to abuse by paying for the videos or like creating a market for it.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > 30 years ago was before the Internet became commonly available, and there was not a lot of talk about CSAM. Cypherpunk FAQ dated 1994-09-10 had: > 8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?" [...] > like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... The 'Four Horsemen' term was coined in 1988. So yes, it was being talked about thirty years ago. Some of us witnessed the (first?) Crypto Wars of the 1990s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
throwanem 3y ago
There are no clever ideas and no easy fixes for this problem, which is that the vast bulk of child sexual abuse, like the vast bulk of all child abuse, happens at the hands of a trusted adult relative or close family friend, in a context that should be safe.
- XorNot 3y ago
  The 80s and 90s did an absolute number on people's ability to recognize societal dangers, because they were obsessed with not insulting anyone. "Your children don't want to do drugs, they're being pushed onto them by the bad drug dealers! (because of course we know you're a good parent, and your kids are good kids, and our moral worldview has no room for nuance or emotional understanding...)" Same thing with child abuse. Hell, the infamous "razor blades/poison in candy" Halloween story[1] started when a father murdered his 8 year old by deliberately placing cyanide-laced pixy stix in his son's trick of treat pile. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_myths
  - throwanem 3y ago
    I slept on it and I still can't figure out what you're trying to get at here. You seem to gesture at some sort of causal relationship, but at what I've no idea, though I assume your claim that kids get abused because they go looking for it to be unintentional. In any case, would you care to clarify?
    - XorNot 3y ago
      The point is that because no one wanted to address the ugly truth of these issues, they either fabricated or vastly overstated non typical dangers. Kids do drugs because they want to experiment. Dealers don't give out free samples. Candy doesn't get poisoned: the case which instigated the idea was a father trying to cover up murdering his child for life insurance money. And strangers in vans rarely ever try to grab children off the street to abuse them: trusted adults in authority positions do, frequently family members. Or church leaders. If you have an instance of child abuse, it's going to turn out to be a family member more often than not. The point is that the 80s/90s didn't want to acknowledge this reality, so it invented or amplified stereotyped villains that would be easy to recognise...except of course they all but don't exist.
hex4def6 3y ago
Require all children under the age of 18 to wear a smart watch with video and microphone recording that can be accessed by a child protection agency at any point. You could have on-device content recognition, so most of the data is discarded without being uploaded, unless that child is tagged for extra attention by authorities. ("We use on-device smart algorithms to ensure privacy. Your child's data will never be uploaded unless on-device AI detects an abuse situation. And who would want to prevent that sort of data upload beyond the abuser?") Have it continually check for watch removal, and if it is removed, upload the last 30 seconds of video to identify who removed it. If the child or parent removed it, issue a fine to the parent and a mandatory interview for the child with child protective services, to uncover the 'true' reason for the removal. For recharging, each child could be issues with a pair of them; one is always on charge, the other is worn. If the currently worn watch detects the other watch is not being charged, it alerts the user. If that is not corrected in a certain period of time, an infraction will be generated. Multiple removal / 'accidental battery depletion' infractions would result in successively higher fines, and potential removal of the child from the parents. This is all doable with today's technology. You just need to manufacture consent with a couple of high-profile cases where a smart watch saved a child from an abusive parent, maybe a kidnapping attempt where the police managed to track the child and recover them with the "lesson" being that all children need this form of tracking.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  > Require all children under the age of 18 to wear a smart watch with video and microphone recording that can be accessed by a child protection agency at any point. You could have on-device content recognition, so most of the data is discarded without being uploaded, unless that child is tagged for extra attention by authorities. ("We use on-device smart algorithms to ensure privacy. I also watched that South Park episode.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    []
- stevefan1999 3y ago
dariosalvi78 3y ago
most abuses happen within the family or close by [1]. Scanning pictures will nothing or close to nothing to solve the issue. It's just a backdoor for further surveillance. 1. https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/ https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/
- fomine3 3y ago
  This is an ignored uncomfortable fact.
chaostheory 3y ago
IMO this is an attempt to take advantage of a preexisting problem in order to force mass surveillance legislation upon the populace
- yukkuri 3y ago
  That is exactly what it is and that is why they're ignoring everyone that tells them why they shouldn't do it
tremon 3y ago
This is an attempt to solve the right problem (CSA) I fail to see how it does that. The abuse happens during the production of the material, not during the spread of it (yes, I know, spreading it is adding insult to injury -- I'm not defending any of it). And there doesn't even need to be "material" involved (recording is optional), yet I see no mention of tackling that problem.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  That's my point - it's an attempt just not an (very) effective attempt. I don't know what is effective - hence why a group of otherwise presumably intelligent and well intentioned lawmakers are throwing this hail mary pass. The sarcastic suggestion of recording every move of every child is terrible - but honestly I can see something like it happening (presumably by parental consent). I have often promoted an idea of "MOOP" - where we record ourselves in real time and over millions of people a open scientific view of human behaviour can be built up and optimised - from spending habits to personal interactions Somewhere between utopia and dystopia
  - MrYellowP 3y ago
    It's really disturbing that there are people out there who believe that this, in any way or form, is meant to be used to protect anyone. It fucking isn't. You're being fooled and you're falling for it. Not only that, you think that monitoring everyone is a good idea, which is absolutely insane. Even more insane is this idea of yours, where everything is recorded for scientific research, completely ignoring that this absolutely will be used to manipulate us even more than we already are being manipulated. You are absolutely insane. Get a grip on actual reality again.
RIMR 3y ago
>This is an attempt to solve the right problem (CSA) Is it though? Does punishing people for possessing CSAM actually have any effect on the rate of CSA? I'm not saying criminalizing CSAM isn't the right choice, but is there any data at all to suggest that punishing the kinds of people that would be caught if we scanned their cloud storage for CSAM actually have a real effect on the number of children harmed? Because if it doesn't, than it stands that the only thing this would accomplish is the feel-good act of putting pedophiles behind bars, but I'm not really worried about pedophiles, I am worried about child rapists and child pornographers that actually commit crimes against children. I don't see how going after end-users is going to do anything at all about the supply chain. But I see a million ways that being allowed to go after end-users would give the state lots of power to search people for just about any crime they decided was important enough to warrant this kind of invasion of privacy. If they are allowed to do this, there is a 100% chance they'll expand beyond CSAM within a few years.
- throw310822 3y ago
  > Does punishing people for possessing CSAM actually have any effect on the rate of CSA? I think this is a more fundamental question than it seems. In a few years- probably less than it takes to actually implement these laws- almost all CSAM could be AI generated. Then consuming it would be effectively a victimless crime- basically punishing someone for his sexual inclinations in the absence of any actual victim. Unless of course it's been proven that consumption of CSAM material substantially increases the risk for CSA behaviour in the consumers.

thfuran 3y ago

>If there was some sure fire guaranteed method we would do it tomorrow, no later the cost No goal is worth pursuing no matter the cost.

rowanG077 3y ago

> If there was some sure fire guaranteed method we would do it tomorrow, no later the cost. That's obviously not true. Here is a simple solution: sterilize as much of humanity as possible. Preferable via an airborne mutagen or something like that. Boom no children to be abused anymore in the span of a few generations.

thfuran 3y ago
If you use a sufficiently potent airborne toxin, you'll achieve results even sooner.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  Well I would argue that killing children is child abuse in itself.
dllthomas 3y ago
Or we can use existing tech and solve the problem with global nuclear annihilation.
- MrYellowP 3y ago
  Or we could create a virus, spread it across the world, invent a new type of vaccine, tell everyone that it helps against the virus but actually slowly kills people leading to an excess death rate nobody officially talks about! Less people, less births, less children, less child abuse! ............ yeah I had to write that one. It fit the chain too well.

WolfeReader 3y ago

>This is an attempt to solve the right problem It really isn't. When a new law or program is announced that is supposedly meant to fight terrorism, child abuse, or drugs - and when the actual scope of the law or program is more than terrorism, child abuse, or drugs, then: You are being manipulated into voting against your interests. 100% of the time.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
We used to know the four horsemen of censorship as Drugs, Terrorism, Child Porn, Money Laundering... You can get whatever you want, just say it's for one of those things. Now... they barely bother and everything is just "for safety".

rootusrootus 3y ago

> It's like 30 years ago saying "people record such abuse onto VHS tape 30 years ago was before the Internet became commonly available, and there was not a lot of talk about CSAM. Hell, the first federal law against it was ... 1984? Why did we not really care about it before then, but now it's a "no matter the cost" problem?

autoexec 3y ago
I don't think there was ever time when people didn't think it was a problem, but the focus was more on going after the people abusing children rather then the people passing around recorded evidence of the crime.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  If I remember correctly more focus was on the collectors inciting to abuse by paying for the videos or like creating a market for it.
throw0101a 3y ago
> 30 years ago was before the Internet became commonly available, and there was not a lot of talk about CSAM. Cypherpunk FAQ dated 1994-09-10 had: > 8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?" [...] > like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... The 'Four Horsemen' term was coined in 1988. So yes, it was being talked about thirty years ago. Some of us witnessed the (first?) Crypto Wars of the 1990s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

throwanem 3y ago

There are no clever ideas and no easy fixes for this problem, which is that the vast bulk of child sexual abuse, like the vast bulk of all child abuse, happens at the hands of a trusted adult relative or close family friend, in a context that should be safe.

XorNot 3y ago
The 80s and 90s did an absolute number on people's ability to recognize societal dangers, because they were obsessed with not insulting anyone. "Your children don't want to do drugs, they're being pushed onto them by the bad drug dealers! (because of course we know you're a good parent, and your kids are good kids, and our moral worldview has no room for nuance or emotional understanding...)" Same thing with child abuse. Hell, the infamous "razor blades/poison in candy" Halloween story[1] started when a father murdered his 8 year old by deliberately placing cyanide-laced pixy stix in his son's trick of treat pile. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_myths
- throwanem 3y ago
  I slept on it and I still can't figure out what you're trying to get at here. You seem to gesture at some sort of causal relationship, but at what I've no idea, though I assume your claim that kids get abused because they go looking for it to be unintentional. In any case, would you care to clarify?
  - XorNot 3y ago
    The point is that because no one wanted to address the ugly truth of these issues, they either fabricated or vastly overstated non typical dangers. Kids do drugs because they want to experiment. Dealers don't give out free samples. Candy doesn't get poisoned: the case which instigated the idea was a father trying to cover up murdering his child for life insurance money. And strangers in vans rarely ever try to grab children off the street to abuse them: trusted adults in authority positions do, frequently family members. Or church leaders. If you have an instance of child abuse, it's going to turn out to be a family member more often than not. The point is that the 80s/90s didn't want to acknowledge this reality, so it invented or amplified stereotyped villains that would be easy to recognise...except of course they all but don't exist.

hex4def6 3y ago

Require all children under the age of 18 to wear a smart watch with video and microphone recording that can be accessed by a child protection agency at any point. You could have on-device content recognition, so most of the data is discarded without being uploaded, unless that child is tagged for extra attention by authorities. ("We use on-device smart algorithms to ensure privacy. Your child's data will never be uploaded unless on-device AI detects an abuse situation. And who would want to prevent that sort of data upload beyond the abuser?") Have it continually check for watch removal, and if it is removed, upload the last 30 seconds of video to identify who removed it. If the child or parent removed it, issue a fine to the parent and a mandatory interview for the child with child protective services, to uncover the 'true' reason for the removal. For recharging, each child could be issues with a pair of them; one is always on charge, the other is worn. If the currently worn watch detects the other watch is not being charged, it alerts the user. If that is not corrected in a certain period of time, an infraction will be generated. Multiple removal / 'accidental battery depletion' infractions would result in successively higher fines, and potential removal of the child from the parents. This is all doable with today's technology. You just need to manufacture consent with a couple of high-profile cases where a smart watch saved a child from an abusive parent, maybe a kidnapping attempt where the police managed to track the child and recover them with the "lesson" being that all children need this form of tracking.

rad_gruchalski 3y ago
> Require all children under the age of 18 to wear a smart watch with video and microphone recording that can be accessed by a child protection agency at any point. You could have on-device content recognition, so most of the data is discarded without being uploaded, unless that child is tagged for extra attention by authorities. ("We use on-device smart algorithms to ensure privacy. I also watched that South Park episode.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  []
stevefan1999 3y ago

dariosalvi78 3y ago

most abuses happen within the family or close by [1]. Scanning pictures will nothing or close to nothing to solve the issue. It's just a backdoor for further surveillance. 1. https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/ https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/

fomine3 3y ago
This is an ignored uncomfortable fact.

chaostheory 3y ago

IMO this is an attempt to take advantage of a preexisting problem in order to force mass surveillance legislation upon the populace

yukkuri 3y ago
That is exactly what it is and that is why they're ignoring everyone that tells them why they shouldn't do it

tremon 3y ago

This is an attempt to solve the right problem (CSA) I fail to see how it does that. The abuse happens during the production of the material, not during the spread of it (yes, I know, spreading it is adding insult to injury -- I'm not defending any of it). And there doesn't even need to be "material" involved (recording is optional), yet I see no mention of tackling that problem.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago
That's my point - it's an attempt just not an (very) effective attempt. I don't know what is effective - hence why a group of otherwise presumably intelligent and well intentioned lawmakers are throwing this hail mary pass. The sarcastic suggestion of recording every move of every child is terrible - but honestly I can see something like it happening (presumably by parental consent). I have often promoted an idea of "MOOP" - where we record ourselves in real time and over millions of people a open scientific view of human behaviour can be built up and optimised - from spending habits to personal interactions Somewhere between utopia and dystopia
- MrYellowP 3y ago
  It's really disturbing that there are people out there who believe that this, in any way or form, is meant to be used to protect anyone. It fucking isn't. You're being fooled and you're falling for it. Not only that, you think that monitoring everyone is a good idea, which is absolutely insane. Even more insane is this idea of yours, where everything is recorded for scientific research, completely ignoring that this absolutely will be used to manipulate us even more than we already are being manipulated. You are absolutely insane. Get a grip on actual reality again.

RIMR 3y ago

>This is an attempt to solve the right problem (CSA) Is it though? Does punishing people for possessing CSAM actually have any effect on the rate of CSA? I'm not saying criminalizing CSAM isn't the right choice, but is there any data at all to suggest that punishing the kinds of people that would be caught if we scanned their cloud storage for CSAM actually have a real effect on the number of children harmed? Because if it doesn't, than it stands that the only thing this would accomplish is the feel-good act of putting pedophiles behind bars, but I'm not really worried about pedophiles, I am worried about child rapists and child pornographers that actually commit crimes against children. I don't see how going after end-users is going to do anything at all about the supply chain. But I see a million ways that being allowed to go after end-users would give the state lots of power to search people for just about any crime they decided was important enough to warrant this kind of invasion of privacy. If they are allowed to do this, there is a 100% chance they'll expand beyond CSAM within a few years.

throw310822 3y ago
> Does punishing people for possessing CSAM actually have any effect on the rate of CSA? I think this is a more fundamental question than it seems. In a few years- probably less than it takes to actually implement these laws- almost all CSAM could be AI generated. Then consuming it would be effectively a victimless crime- basically punishing someone for his sexual inclinations in the absence of any actual victim. Unless of course it's been proven that consumption of CSAM material substantially increases the risk for CSA behaviour in the consumers.