4 ms·
I think you overestimate the technical knowledge and skills of many people. For every crafty career criminal there's a dumb idiot doing dumb stuff on account of
by arp242 2y ago
I think you overestimate the technical knowledge and skills of many people. For every crafty career criminal there's a dumb idiot doing dumb stuff on account of being a dumb idiot. And even crafty career criminals can and do make mistakes.
Of course it won't catch 100% of it, but very few laws or measure do that (and those that do almost always come with very high amounts of false positives). Also links are not hard to scan for either, and you can't "just" upload CSAM to anywhere either and not expect troubles sooner or later (unless you know what you're doing, in which case we're back to the previous paragraph).
I think it's very hard to deny that of course it will catch a non-zero number of people, although it's hard to determine exactly how many beforehand. That doesn't mean it's a good law, it just means that all these type of "it won't even catch anyone!" argument are just bad arguments.
- vasco 2y agoI think you're making my argument out to be something else. I'm not saying we can only have laws that are bulletproof. But the fact they think links and text are different things, makes me _know_ they don't understand what they are doing. So I know their interpretation of the risk/reward is also not good and it's annoying to have freedoms taken away by dummies. If I get the impression they are smart and looked into it I'd swallow it way easier.
- arp242 2y ago> the fact they think links and text are different things I don't think anyone really thinks that.
- vasco 2y agoMaybe I have some misunderstanding from the draft legislation. Can you explain how one can prevent users from sharing links while keeping them able to share text?
- arp242 2y agoYou can't. But like I said: of course it's not 100% foolproof. Going from that to "they think links and text are different things" is quite a leap.
- InCityDreams 2y agoFirst message: p 0 r n, s i 7 e Second message: dot Third message: come on over. Forth message: Sorry my mistake, organising the house. After a while the second, third and fourth won't be required. Jeeze...we learned obfuscation fucking years ago (torrenting was punishable then, probably is still, and a few people may be made examples of, by ip tracking etc as subscribing becomes more disliked).
- Hizonner 2y ago> I think it's very hard to deny that of course it will catch a non-zero number of people, Sure, but it is still completely valid to argue that it won't quantitatively be effective enough to justify its cost, either in money or in creating-the-infrastructure-for-a-fucking-police-state. "Non-zero" isn't necessarily an acceptable level of effectiveness.
- arp242 2y agoYes, but that is a very different argument than "it doesn't work at all". Then we can start discussing what the balance ought to be and all of that, rather than just a "Njet! It won't work!"
- pzo 2y agoIt will work maybe somehow the first time. Predators will adapt and start using obfuscation same like thiefts adapt - burgler expect that most doors will be locked and might have camera and will bring balaclava and crowbar to their 'workplace'
- mikrotikker 2y agoIf it's not close to 100% is it even worth it? I think Blackstone's formulation has something to say about all those innocents caught up in it.