4 ms·

The only way for this system to work would be if the database of CSAM were managed by consensus by geopolitical rivals. That is, it would have to include Russia

The only way for this system to work would be if the database of CSAM were managed by consensus by geopolitical rivals. That is, it would have to include Russia and China. This is the only way to ensure that Western governments don't abuse their access in the future to surveil dissident groups. Trusting that NCMEC can't be compromised is a nonstarter. I would trust a system where Chinese, Russian, American, British, etc police agreed that the database only includes CSAM.

4ugSWklu 3y ago
This does already exist somewhat as the INTERPOL Baseline list - https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Crimes-against-children/Blocking-and-categorizing-content https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Crimes-against-children/Bloc... Does this meet your threshold?
- Despegar 3y ago
  If national legislation by Western governments provided that only signatures from this org could be included, then I'd support it. But I don't know anything about this INTERPOL list, does it actually require consensus by all of these countries? Or can one country influence what's included in practice? There has to be an effective veto by all the countries involved for anything to be included.
  - 4ugSWklu 3y ago
    “To be included in the Baseline list, child abuse images and videos must be recognized as such by our specialist network of investigators, and meet specific criteria in terms of the severity of the image content, for example those believed to feature children aged 13 and under. The strict criteria ensure that the Baseline list refers only to images and videos which would be considered as illegal in any country.” INTERPOL has a very large membership, including Russia and China. The baseline list is reviewed so only media that is illegal in every country INTERPOL operates in is included. I’m not sure how a veto system as you’re suggesting would work practically, but this might be the closest thing.
    - Despegar 3y ago
      The veto system would have to require that the equivalent of Russia and China's NCMEC agrees that the image/video's signature that's going to be included in the database is actually CSAM at a low level operational level. Without that consensus, it should be technically impossible for anyone to include a signature.
      - 4ugSWklu 3y ago
        I think in a perfect world that would be great. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to see how a system like that could ever be implemented within our lifetimes. I personally think Baseline is a good pragmatic approach. It includes only known media, where they retain the originals for sense checking, and only includes things judged to be CSAM by trained experts. It’s probably the lightest touch possible solution that is still somewhat effective.
        Despegar 3y ago
        I don't see why it's impossible. It requires coordination and millions of dollars in funding by all the respective governments, but if the world thinks CSAM is a serious problem, then it's a drop in the bucket. CSAM doesn't need to be added to the database in real-time. It can be done quarterly, giving each national agency time to deliberate on the content.
- omginternets 3y ago
  If you'll forgive this tangent, I am not sure it is a good idea to maintain a "worst of" list. I can already imagine pedos competing for first place.
fragmede 3y ago
That sounds as effective as, oh, I don't know, the UN security council. Why not just argue against having the whole thing entirely?
- Despegar 3y ago
  This is the only compromise I would accept, otherwise I'm in favor of E2E with no backdoors. People who care about preventing CSAM and prosecuting pedophiles should consider this an improvement over the status quo.
- 4ugSWklu 3y ago
  I’m unsure what you’re saying here, can you clarify? Is it that Baseline seems overly bureaucratic and will be ineffective, or that people should not support any CSAM lists at all?
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  The UN security council is hardly a non-entity. They aren't great at addressing certain kinds of geopolitically contentious problems, but UN peacekeepers have 12 active deployments. (https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/where-we-operate https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/where-we-operate)
- lazide 3y ago
  The UN security council is VERY effective at what it's actual purpose is, which is preventing all out nuclear war between the major super powers. That is why the confirmed nuclear powers are the only ones with veto powers (minus Pakistan/India/NK, interestingly). Everything else is quite explicitly window dressing.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Mutually assured destruction does that. The security council has nothing to do with it. Also, at the time of its founding, the US was the only country with nukes, so that's not the logic behind who the permanent members are.
jstarfish 3y ago
The hyperbole around the issue of CSAM is starting to outweigh the threat itself. The crimes committed against a minority of the population isn't worth this much drama. We don't even pay this much attention to murdered children. This isn't going to unite international rivals against it any more than an asteroid hurtling toward the planet. Only the western world gives a shit about it, which means it's easily weaponized by anybody outside of it. Rather than backdooring every device on the planet, a more practical solution would be to just take away kids' phones and chain them to the radiator. To protect the children from CSAM, lock them up. We don't like to admit it but face the facts: children are property as far as the State is concerned. Same as any other asset, livestock and firearms, they can be "taken" away from you and "given" to others for dividends (which, when you think about it, describes the act of trafficking itself). You don't protect your home by unlocking everyone else's. That sort of "solution" makes you an actual menace to society.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > to just take away kids' phones Absolutely. Just the first part, seriously. No need for chains and radiators. Let's ban kids under 16 from access to phones and the open Internet. It would MASSIVELY improve just about everything about childhood and mental health of the young. There are plenty of technologies emerging with the density of memory and GPT type compression (that's what neural networks really do... compression) to facilitate "curated education in a box", and small network (family and friends) communication.
  - xcdzvyn 3y ago
    > It would MASSIVELY improve just about everything about childhood and mental health of the young. Honestly it'd make the internet a lot better for adults too.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    Sure. I was exaggerating to make my point-- in no context has "safety through disarmament" ever been a thing. The Louvre doesn't respond to people stealing paintings by disabling all the security cameras. Prisons don't protect the public by being free-range. Nuclear disarmament is too complex to go into here, but hypocrisy abounds. Barring that one incident, the Mint doesn't protect the money supply by storing it in the middle of a Walmart parking lot (predictably, it got stolen). Every time we seek to secure anything, we make the coveted object more inaccessible to pursuers. That's how Protection works. Anyone telling you lowering your guard and becoming vulnerable will somehow increase anyone's safety is one distraction away from slipping a roofie into your drink. It's the sort of gaslighting one expects from a pervert or voyeur.

4ugSWklu 3y ago

This does already exist somewhat as the INTERPOL Baseline list - https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Crimes-against-children/Blocking-and-categorizing-content https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Crimes-against-children/Bloc... Does this meet your threshold?

Despegar 3y ago
If national legislation by Western governments provided that only signatures from this org could be included, then I'd support it. But I don't know anything about this INTERPOL list, does it actually require consensus by all of these countries? Or can one country influence what's included in practice? There has to be an effective veto by all the countries involved for anything to be included.
- 4ugSWklu 3y ago
  “To be included in the Baseline list, child abuse images and videos must be recognized as such by our specialist network of investigators, and meet specific criteria in terms of the severity of the image content, for example those believed to feature children aged 13 and under. The strict criteria ensure that the Baseline list refers only to images and videos which would be considered as illegal in any country.” INTERPOL has a very large membership, including Russia and China. The baseline list is reviewed so only media that is illegal in every country INTERPOL operates in is included. I’m not sure how a veto system as you’re suggesting would work practically, but this might be the closest thing.
  - Despegar 3y ago
    The veto system would have to require that the equivalent of Russia and China's NCMEC agrees that the image/video's signature that's going to be included in the database is actually CSAM at a low level operational level. Without that consensus, it should be technically impossible for anyone to include a signature.
    - 4ugSWklu 3y ago
      I think in a perfect world that would be great. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to see how a system like that could ever be implemented within our lifetimes. I personally think Baseline is a good pragmatic approach. It includes only known media, where they retain the originals for sense checking, and only includes things judged to be CSAM by trained experts. It’s probably the lightest touch possible solution that is still somewhat effective.
      - Despegar 3y ago
        I don't see why it's impossible. It requires coordination and millions of dollars in funding by all the respective governments, but if the world thinks CSAM is a serious problem, then it's a drop in the bucket. CSAM doesn't need to be added to the database in real-time. It can be done quarterly, giving each national agency time to deliberate on the content.
omginternets 3y ago
If you'll forgive this tangent, I am not sure it is a good idea to maintain a "worst of" list. I can already imagine pedos competing for first place.

fragmede 3y ago

That sounds as effective as, oh, I don't know, the UN security council. Why not just argue against having the whole thing entirely?

Despegar 3y ago
This is the only compromise I would accept, otherwise I'm in favor of E2E with no backdoors. People who care about preventing CSAM and prosecuting pedophiles should consider this an improvement over the status quo.
4ugSWklu 3y ago
I’m unsure what you’re saying here, can you clarify? Is it that Baseline seems overly bureaucratic and will be ineffective, or that people should not support any CSAM lists at all?
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
The UN security council is hardly a non-entity. They aren't great at addressing certain kinds of geopolitically contentious problems, but UN peacekeepers have 12 active deployments. (https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/where-we-operate https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/where-we-operate)
lazide 3y ago
The UN security council is VERY effective at what it's actual purpose is, which is preventing all out nuclear war between the major super powers. That is why the confirmed nuclear powers are the only ones with veto powers (minus Pakistan/India/NK, interestingly). Everything else is quite explicitly window dressing.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Mutually assured destruction does that. The security council has nothing to do with it. Also, at the time of its founding, the US was the only country with nukes, so that's not the logic behind who the permanent members are.

jstarfish 3y ago

The hyperbole around the issue of CSAM is starting to outweigh the threat itself. The crimes committed against a minority of the population isn't worth this much drama. We don't even pay this much attention to murdered children. This isn't going to unite international rivals against it any more than an asteroid hurtling toward the planet. Only the western world gives a shit about it, which means it's easily weaponized by anybody outside of it. Rather than backdooring every device on the planet, a more practical solution would be to just take away kids' phones and chain them to the radiator. To protect the children from CSAM, lock them up. We don't like to admit it but face the facts: children are property as far as the State is concerned. Same as any other asset, livestock and firearms, they can be "taken" away from you and "given" to others for dividends (which, when you think about it, describes the act of trafficking itself). You don't protect your home by unlocking everyone else's. That sort of "solution" makes you an actual menace to society.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> to just take away kids' phones Absolutely. Just the first part, seriously. No need for chains and radiators. Let's ban kids under 16 from access to phones and the open Internet. It would MASSIVELY improve just about everything about childhood and mental health of the young. There are plenty of technologies emerging with the density of memory and GPT type compression (that's what neural networks really do... compression) to facilitate "curated education in a box", and small network (family and friends) communication.
- xcdzvyn 3y ago
  > It would MASSIVELY improve just about everything about childhood and mental health of the young. Honestly it'd make the internet a lot better for adults too.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Sure. I was exaggerating to make my point-- in no context has "safety through disarmament" ever been a thing. The Louvre doesn't respond to people stealing paintings by disabling all the security cameras. Prisons don't protect the public by being free-range. Nuclear disarmament is too complex to go into here, but hypocrisy abounds. Barring that one incident, the Mint doesn't protect the money supply by storing it in the middle of a Walmart parking lot (predictably, it got stolen). Every time we seek to secure anything, we make the coveted object more inaccessible to pursuers. That's how Protection works. Anyone telling you lowering your guard and becoming vulnerable will somehow increase anyone's safety is one distraction away from slipping a roofie into your drink. It's the sort of gaslighting one expects from a pervert or voyeur.