5 ms·

This has nothing to do with csam and arguing that point is on purpose, to distract people and the politicians can say “xp84 supports child pornography!” It has

This has nothing to do with csam and arguing that point is on purpose, to distract people and the politicians can say “xp84 supports child pornography!” It has everything to do with censorship and complete control over people’s ability to communicate. Politicians hate free speech and they want to control their citizens completely including their thoughts. This is true evil.

palata 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- atoav 1y ago
  > if you can read all communications But you can't. You can legally require messages to implement client side scanning before the encryption happens or add some backdoor keys and hope they don't leak. Since cryptography is known anybody can always just create messengers that just don't implement that requirement. If you sexually abuse children the hurdle to illegally running a non-backdoored messenger seems pretty low to me. Thats like fighting illegal street races by implementing electronically-GPS-enforced tempolimits for everybody. You won't catch the people it is meant to catch. Only that surveilling your entire population minus the criminals has dire consequences for a free society.
  - palata 1y ago
    > But you can't. Be careful what you wish for. We could enforce client-side scanning on the OS. Everything that appears on the screen is scanned and reported. > If you sexually abuse children the hurdle to illegally running a non-backdoored messenger seems pretty low to me. How do you contact children on mainstream messengers if you can't use mainstream messengers? Not to mention that most people consuming CSAM are not technically savvy. It is known that such material goes through mainstream messengers. > Only that surveilling your entire population minus the criminals has dire consequences for a free society. Again: I am against ChatControl. We fundamentally cannot know what is running in this client side scanner, and that makes it a risk. But saying that it won't ever catch a single criminal is not a valid argument. You won't convince politicians to vote against ChatControl with such claims.
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      > Not to mention that most people consuming CSAM are not technically savvy. It is known that such material goes through mainstream messengers. The reason is because it works. They're not stupid - they can use signal. The reality is that the privacy options not only exist, they're really good - often better and easier to use than the mainstream stuff. They will just pivot to other tools.
      - palata 1y ago
        > How do you contact children on mainstream messengers if you can't use mainstream messengers?
        array_key_first 1y ago
        The scanning just doesn't include contacting children - it includes CSAM. Talking to kids isn't CSAM. You're talking about something else altogether, and something which is purely hypothetical.
        palata 1y ago
        > The scanning just doesn't include contacting children - it includes CSAM. My understanding is that they are not only talking about having a list of hashes (of illegal images), but also having some kind of machine learning. And they are not only talking about scanning images, but text, too. I don't know what you expect them to report when scanning conversations with machine learning?
    - atoav 1y ago
      > Be careful what you wish for. We could enforce client-side scanning on the OS. Everything that appears on the screen is scanned and reported. Nope. Criminals can still just build their own devices with their own operating systems. We have existing OS without spying, people have them as ISO on their harddrives. You can't stop criminals from installing an old Lineage OS build. Legally you can't stop anybody from using encrypted channels if they are motivate unless you go out and erase the knowledge. Implementing filters that go on all communications is undemocratic. Any future authoritarian government can use the same filter to immediately target their opposition, not just in theory, in practise. We have designed our democracies with division of powers for the simple reason that we have learned through history that giving any single kind of entity that kind of power leads to tyranny. That means whenever we give the government new superpowers we are changing a carefully setup balance. What does the citizen get for that trade? Nothing. If your power only works as long as it is in the hands of the good ones and becomes dystopian once it gets into the hands of the bad guys, maybe that power shouldn't exist. Since we want to obviously prevent childrem from being sexually abused the best way to start according to most child-protection organizations is to start at the root. That means educating kids early on in child-suitable ways and investing in prevention and psuchological help for potential pedophiles. If children have the possibility to signal such a thing happened to adults or other persons of trust, you don't need mass surveillance. But my guess is that CSAM is just the symbolic reason, in reality this is meant to do more. It would be perfect to target small movements as they are emerging for example.
- blindriver 1y ago
  Actually I deny that. What proof is there that peddlers of child pornography are using chat to distribute CSAM? What proof is there that they won’t simply move to another undocumented form of distribution once this is implemented, leaving the criminals unmonitored but every law-abiding citizen monitored?
  - palata 1y ago
    > What proof is there that peddlers of child pornography are using chat to distribute CSAM? Are you kidding me? How do you think predators get in contact with children? Over social media that children use, obviously. And of course many criminals use chat. Most have no clue about encryption, like the vast majority of humans.
    - xp84 1y ago
      > How do you think predators get in contact with children? I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the vast, vast majority of the perpetrators of these offenses are either family members, or known and trusted people to the family, such as the friends of an older sibling, friends of parents, stepparents, teachers, priests, etc. The bogeyman of the evil stranger paedo lurking on social media cold-calling random kids is an edge case.
      - palata 1y ago
        Have you really never seen those groups of teenagers who lure a predator to meet a kid somewhere (they do that over mainstream social media) and then beat and humiliate the said predator? I thought it was in fashion. Happens where I live.
    - blindriver 1y ago
      “Distribute” not “contact”. Unless you want to scan all chat messages for potential signs of adults engaging in grooming of children too? Talk about a slippery slope, you’re basically making my point.
      - 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Saline9515 1y ago
  Criminals are reactive. If you add a CCTV where drug dealing happens, sellers and buyers will go to another place. In the end, nothing changes.
  - palata 1y ago
    Not all of them are. Actually CCTVs catch some of them. Tapping their phones as well.
  - sally_glance 1y ago
    Sounds like a non-sequitur to me. Yes, this is how it works - in every aspect of life we try to regulate as a society (through laws and enforcement). Criminal activities are prohibited, restricted and monitored. Criminals move on, but the law is also adaptive and soon catches on. Following your argument leads to anarchy and currently western society mostly shares the belief that we're better off with democracy.
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      No,the logical conclusion is that, on the contrary, liberal democracies end up as authoritarian legalist regimes, as they progressively need more and more laws and enforcement to catch criminals who evade them. You can see this clearly with the constant inflation of AML laws in the EU, which become more and more restrictive and invasive each year, without any clear effect.
      - palata 1y ago
        The US does not feel like they are into adding regulations, would you say they are less likely to end up authoritarian?
        Saline9515 1y ago
        There are multiple ways to end up an authoritarian State. You can add many regulations, then have someone come to power and use those regulations to repress society (a good example would be Germany in 1937), or have a weakening of the institutions protecting citizen's rights, which is something the US is experiencing. It has started before Trump, I think that a turning point was the Patriot Act, but Democrats didn't overturn it and picked their ennemies, too[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
alkonaut 1y ago
But politicians are - in general - neither evil, nor do they have any real incentive to ”control citizens’ thoughts”. It doesn’t make sense. They can be gullible. Non-Technical. Owned by lobbyists. Under pressure to deliver on the apparent problem of the day (csam, terror, whatever). But I don’t think there is a general crusade against privacy. That’s why I think it’s so infuriating: I’m sure it’s not even deliberately dismantling privacy. They’re doing it blindly. This is pushed by parties that have a good track record of preserving integrity. That’s why it’s so surprising.
- Saline9515 1y ago
  If they are "just doing their job" why are they asking for an exemption that would apply only to them? No, they firmly believe that safety should be gained at the cost of privacy.
  - palata 1y ago
    I could imagine that war orders may be interpreted as "illegal" and therefore reported. Which may not be desirable?
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      So it's ok if the database containing my nudes leaks, but not if it contains state secrets? I feel really protected!
      - palata 1y ago
        Not saying that I agree, just saying that I can imagine it's not done in bad faith.
        Saline9515 1y ago
        It's totally done in bad faith, corruption is a real thing in EU politics.

palata 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
atoav 1y ago
> if you can read all communications But you can't. You can legally require messages to implement client side scanning before the encryption happens or add some backdoor keys and hope they don't leak. Since cryptography is known anybody can always just create messengers that just don't implement that requirement. If you sexually abuse children the hurdle to illegally running a non-backdoored messenger seems pretty low to me. Thats like fighting illegal street races by implementing electronically-GPS-enforced tempolimits for everybody. You won't catch the people it is meant to catch. Only that surveilling your entire population minus the criminals has dire consequences for a free society.
- palata 1y ago
  > But you can't. Be careful what you wish for. We could enforce client-side scanning on the OS. Everything that appears on the screen is scanned and reported. > If you sexually abuse children the hurdle to illegally running a non-backdoored messenger seems pretty low to me. How do you contact children on mainstream messengers if you can't use mainstream messengers? Not to mention that most people consuming CSAM are not technically savvy. It is known that such material goes through mainstream messengers. > Only that surveilling your entire population minus the criminals has dire consequences for a free society. Again: I am against ChatControl. We fundamentally cannot know what is running in this client side scanner, and that makes it a risk. But saying that it won't ever catch a single criminal is not a valid argument. You won't convince politicians to vote against ChatControl with such claims.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    > Not to mention that most people consuming CSAM are not technically savvy. It is known that such material goes through mainstream messengers. The reason is because it works. They're not stupid - they can use signal. The reality is that the privacy options not only exist, they're really good - often better and easier to use than the mainstream stuff. They will just pivot to other tools.
    - palata 1y ago
      > How do you contact children on mainstream messengers if you can't use mainstream messengers?
      - array_key_first 1y ago
        The scanning just doesn't include contacting children - it includes CSAM. Talking to kids isn't CSAM. You're talking about something else altogether, and something which is purely hypothetical.
        palata 1y ago
        > The scanning just doesn't include contacting children - it includes CSAM. My understanding is that they are not only talking about having a list of hashes (of illegal images), but also having some kind of machine learning. And they are not only talking about scanning images, but text, too. I don't know what you expect them to report when scanning conversations with machine learning?
  - atoav 1y ago
    > Be careful what you wish for. We could enforce client-side scanning on the OS. Everything that appears on the screen is scanned and reported. Nope. Criminals can still just build their own devices with their own operating systems. We have existing OS without spying, people have them as ISO on their harddrives. You can't stop criminals from installing an old Lineage OS build. Legally you can't stop anybody from using encrypted channels if they are motivate unless you go out and erase the knowledge. Implementing filters that go on all communications is undemocratic. Any future authoritarian government can use the same filter to immediately target their opposition, not just in theory, in practise. We have designed our democracies with division of powers for the simple reason that we have learned through history that giving any single kind of entity that kind of power leads to tyranny. That means whenever we give the government new superpowers we are changing a carefully setup balance. What does the citizen get for that trade? Nothing. If your power only works as long as it is in the hands of the good ones and becomes dystopian once it gets into the hands of the bad guys, maybe that power shouldn't exist. Since we want to obviously prevent childrem from being sexually abused the best way to start according to most child-protection organizations is to start at the root. That means educating kids early on in child-suitable ways and investing in prevention and psuchological help for potential pedophiles. If children have the possibility to signal such a thing happened to adults or other persons of trust, you don't need mass surveillance. But my guess is that CSAM is just the symbolic reason, in reality this is meant to do more. It would be perfect to target small movements as they are emerging for example.
blindriver 1y ago
Actually I deny that. What proof is there that peddlers of child pornography are using chat to distribute CSAM? What proof is there that they won’t simply move to another undocumented form of distribution once this is implemented, leaving the criminals unmonitored but every law-abiding citizen monitored?
- palata 1y ago
  > What proof is there that peddlers of child pornography are using chat to distribute CSAM? Are you kidding me? How do you think predators get in contact with children? Over social media that children use, obviously. And of course many criminals use chat. Most have no clue about encryption, like the vast majority of humans.
  - xp84 1y ago
    > How do you think predators get in contact with children? I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the vast, vast majority of the perpetrators of these offenses are either family members, or known and trusted people to the family, such as the friends of an older sibling, friends of parents, stepparents, teachers, priests, etc. The bogeyman of the evil stranger paedo lurking on social media cold-calling random kids is an edge case.
    - palata 1y ago
      Have you really never seen those groups of teenagers who lure a predator to meet a kid somewhere (they do that over mainstream social media) and then beat and humiliate the said predator? I thought it was in fashion. Happens where I live.
  - blindriver 1y ago
    “Distribute” not “contact”. Unless you want to scan all chat messages for potential signs of adults engaging in grooming of children too? Talk about a slippery slope, you’re basically making my point.
    - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Saline9515 1y ago
Criminals are reactive. If you add a CCTV where drug dealing happens, sellers and buyers will go to another place. In the end, nothing changes.
- palata 1y ago
  Not all of them are. Actually CCTVs catch some of them. Tapping their phones as well.
- sally_glance 1y ago
  Sounds like a non-sequitur to me. Yes, this is how it works - in every aspect of life we try to regulate as a society (through laws and enforcement). Criminal activities are prohibited, restricted and monitored. Criminals move on, but the law is also adaptive and soon catches on. Following your argument leads to anarchy and currently western society mostly shares the belief that we're better off with democracy.
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    No,the logical conclusion is that, on the contrary, liberal democracies end up as authoritarian legalist regimes, as they progressively need more and more laws and enforcement to catch criminals who evade them. You can see this clearly with the constant inflation of AML laws in the EU, which become more and more restrictive and invasive each year, without any clear effect.
    - palata 1y ago
      The US does not feel like they are into adding regulations, would you say they are less likely to end up authoritarian?
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        There are multiple ways to end up an authoritarian State. You can add many regulations, then have someone come to power and use those regulations to repress society (a good example would be Germany in 1937), or have a weakening of the institutions protecting citizen's rights, which is something the US is experiencing. It has started before Trump, I think that a turning point was the Patriot Act, but Democrats didn't overturn it and picked their ennemies, too[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

alkonaut 1y ago

But politicians are - in general - neither evil, nor do they have any real incentive to ”control citizens’ thoughts”. It doesn’t make sense. They can be gullible. Non-Technical. Owned by lobbyists. Under pressure to deliver on the apparent problem of the day (csam, terror, whatever). But I don’t think there is a general crusade against privacy. That’s why I think it’s so infuriating: I’m sure it’s not even deliberately dismantling privacy. They’re doing it blindly. This is pushed by parties that have a good track record of preserving integrity. That’s why it’s so surprising.

Saline9515 1y ago
If they are "just doing their job" why are they asking for an exemption that would apply only to them? No, they firmly believe that safety should be gained at the cost of privacy.
- palata 1y ago
  I could imagine that war orders may be interpreted as "illegal" and therefore reported. Which may not be desirable?
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    So it's ok if the database containing my nudes leaks, but not if it contains state secrets? I feel really protected!
    - palata 1y ago
      Not saying that I agree, just saying that I can imagine it's not done in bad faith.
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        It's totally done in bad faith, corruption is a real thing in EU politics.