3 ms·

Looks like you're not familiar with how these sorts of government databases are usually run. It is as follows: 1. nothing ever gets deleted for any reasonable

by lstodd 3y ago

Looks like you're not familiar with how these sorts of government databases are usually run. It is as follows: 1. nothing ever gets deleted for any reasonable reason. 2. bribes and connections will suffice to delete or include anything 3. even so, it's a slow-as-molasses mess that just gets in everyone's way 4. but still it can't be uprooted because budgets won't spend themselves IDK what UK wants with this shit. As the examples of China and lately Russia show, this just does not work against the savvy, and the rest are adequately blinded with conventional propaganda already, so what's the point?

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Right, but what I'm saying is #1 and #2 could easily make any evidence from these databases inadmissible in court. It's a straightforward argument for any lawyer to make.
- EPWN3D 3y ago
  "Your honor the defendant's self-maintained list of hashes is obviously inadmissible because if authentic, it won't be incriminating, and if tampered with, it must be disregarded. This has no relevance to the hashes independently discovered in his possession, which were found to be on Ofcom's list of illegal hashes." "Agreed, motion to exclude granted, the case will proceed to trial."
  - hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
    Alright, my bad for not being more concrete. Let me try: "Your honor, the hash 6f5902ac237024bdd0c176cb93063dc4 was found in Ofcom's illegal hash list, which is the MD5 hash for 'hello world' all lowercase. 'hello world' is obviously not illegal. Someone must have found a way to put it in there, perhaps maliciously, perhaps by accident, perhaps due to a bribe [per the parent comment], perhaps as an act of protest. Ether way, it proves not every hash in the hash dump is illegal, and we have no way of knowing whether the legal ones outnumber the illegal ones by 1 to 10, or 10 to 1, or 1 million to 1. Indeed we have good reason to believe malicious actors would want to fill this database up with meaningless hashes as much as possible if any backdoor was found. Therefore evidence from Ofcam's database must be considered inadmissible."
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Eh how do you think this hash database would work? More likely it would be... without you or your lawyer present.."device X owned by person Y had a hash hit register to child pornography, we would like a search warrant for this device" Judge "granted"
- lstodd 3y ago
  Wishful thinking. To admit that the stuff is inadmissible is to admit that the whole narrative pushed by very important persons was bullshit and that the resulting budgets were misallocated, and we can't have that, can we? Edit: It's like it is with the TSA -- everyone agrees that it's a useless money sink, but there is no way to get rid of it.
akomtu 3y ago
The UK state thinks "I have the ability to control X, then it's my duty to control X, for that's the reason I exist." The state probably believes that it is the brain of the nation and the people is its body. From this logic, it follows naturally what the arrangement should be.

by lstodd 3y ago

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

Right, but what I'm saying is #1 and #2 could easily make any evidence from these databases inadmissible in court. It's a straightforward argument for any lawyer to make.

EPWN3D 3y ago
"Your honor the defendant's self-maintained list of hashes is obviously inadmissible because if authentic, it won't be incriminating, and if tampered with, it must be disregarded. This has no relevance to the hashes independently discovered in his possession, which were found to be on Ofcom's list of illegal hashes." "Agreed, motion to exclude granted, the case will proceed to trial."
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
  Alright, my bad for not being more concrete. Let me try: "Your honor, the hash 6f5902ac237024bdd0c176cb93063dc4 was found in Ofcom's illegal hash list, which is the MD5 hash for 'hello world' all lowercase. 'hello world' is obviously not illegal. Someone must have found a way to put it in there, perhaps maliciously, perhaps by accident, perhaps due to a bribe [per the parent comment], perhaps as an act of protest. Ether way, it proves not every hash in the hash dump is illegal, and we have no way of knowing whether the legal ones outnumber the illegal ones by 1 to 10, or 10 to 1, or 1 million to 1. Indeed we have good reason to believe malicious actors would want to fill this database up with meaningless hashes as much as possible if any backdoor was found. Therefore evidence from Ofcam's database must be considered inadmissible."
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Eh how do you think this hash database would work? More likely it would be... without you or your lawyer present.."device X owned by person Y had a hash hit register to child pornography, we would like a search warrant for this device" Judge "granted"
lstodd 3y ago
Wishful thinking. To admit that the stuff is inadmissible is to admit that the whole narrative pushed by very important persons was bullshit and that the resulting budgets were misallocated, and we can't have that, can we? Edit: It's like it is with the TSA -- everyone agrees that it's a useless money sink, but there is no way to get rid of it.

akomtu 3y ago

The UK state thinks "I have the ability to control X, then it's my duty to control X, for that's the reason I exist." The state probably believes that it is the brain of the nation and the people is its body. From this logic, it follows naturally what the arrangement should be.