6 ms·
The thing that is crazy to me is that they choose to go after Signal of all things. Certainly there would be higher priority targets than a messaging app that h
by jimbo808 1y ago
The thing that is crazy to me is that they choose to go after Signal of all things. Certainly there would be higher priority targets than a messaging app that has no social networking features to speak of, if child predators were really the target here.
- palata 1y agoThis is nonsense. Anyone who has the smallest clue would use Signal for anything sensitive. Of course people would use Signal to talk about illegal stuff. I am against ChatControl. But I am amazed by all the bullshit arguments that people find to criticise ChatControl. If you have more control, obviously it's easier to track criminals. That's not the question at all. The question is: what is the cost to society? A few decades ago, all communications were unencrypted and people were fine. Why would it be different now? That's the question you need to answer.
- kypro 1y agoYou're all assuming that predators who are already deliberating using apps which are encrypted to share CSAM won't just move to something else where there is encryption – which will always be possible unless the EU fines a way to ban maths or reverts back to the pre-digital age. This might catch the odd moron sharing stuff on Facebook or on their phone, but I doubt it will stop the average offender was is already going out of their way to use encrypted apps/services. But okay great, at least you catch the morons I guess, but at what cost? Here in the UK it's pretty common to be arrested for tweets at it is. There's no doubt in my mind this will be used to catch individuals committing speech crimes who are currently getting away with it because they share their opinions behind closed doors.
- palata 1y ago> but I doubt it will stop the average offender I strongly believe it will catch the average offender. The average human doesn't have a clue about cryptography. It won't catch all of them, of course. My point is that it is invalid to say that it won't catch anyone. > but at what cost? EXACTLY! The problem is that whoever controls the list of illegal material can abuse it. We fundamentally cannot audit the list because the material on this list is highly illegal. There is a risk of abuse.
- olejorgenb 1y ago"It won't catch all of them, of course. My point is that it is invalid to say that it won't catch anyone." Sure, but wouldn't they quickly learn once people are getting caught?
- palata 1y agoNo, they wouldn't. People were getting caught before encrypted apps. People are still getting caught on unencrypted apps today, even if it's easy to install an encrypted app. And predators who get in contact with kids have to do it over social media that the kids use. Those ones would be affected by ChatControl.
- Woodi 1y agoGood point. When crime is to hard for average moron then mafia start to provide new services, as they usually do. Probably with path for effortless escalation to not online experience. Epstein was just a test run, maybe... But privacy-less society will be implemented by then... Just a question: why they want no privacy at all costs ??
- miroljub 1y agoIt was unencrypted and “it was fine“ because it was technically nearly impossible to store and process all communications. Now, one small server cluster can analyse all communication channels in a country in real time. The only thing stopping it is the encryption.
- palata 1y agoOk, but with ChatControl, you still send your messages encrypted. They are scanned on your device. So all communications aren't stored outside of your device, right?
- ulrikrasmussen 1y agoAll falsely flagged communication is. And there will be lots and lots of it, even if it is just a tiny fraction of the total number of messages sent, since the number of messages sent between people is so big. This is the classic problem with statistical methods looking for rare things in large populations which also is why we don't screen everyone for all illnesses all the time - the false positives would do too much harm. You also will not know if your message is flagged, so if you are ever in doubt about how your message will be categorized, you will have to assume that it will be flagged and sent to storage for an unknown amount of time
- palata 1y agoIf you care about the tiny fraction of the total number being stored by the government, frankly you should care a lot more about all the data being stored by TooBigTech. Feels a bit hypocritical to accept one and not the other. Really, I think that the problem with ChatControl is that it is a weapon for surveillance. Not because of the false positive, but because whoever controls it can decide what gets reported. Depending on how a government evolves, that could be very dangerous. And we have examples of governments evolving like this in history.
- danaris 1y ago> If you care about the tiny fraction of the total number being stored by the government, frankly you should care a lot more about all the data being stored by TooBigTech. And what makes you think we don't? It's much, much easier to stop new incursions into our privacy than to claw back privacy we've already lost. And it's much, much easier to stop the government from violating our privacy than to stop megacorporations accountable to no one for anything other than profit from doing so. I think seeing hypocrisy here is being extremely uncharitable.
- mewpmewp2 1y agoSo ChatControl means that e.g. Signal would be obligated to automatically scan pictures and messages sent for CSAM. This is beyond encryption. And if they were to actually do that, it would mean it's non sensical for people spreading this material to use it as they would immediately be caught, so they would just use other tools. But people are talking about both - the ridiculousness of the premise that this would help combat this and additionally of course the cost of privacy. It's beyond encryption. Teenagers sending each other pictures could get flagged by AI etc. Any of your messages and images having potential to get falsely positively flagged.
- palata 1y agoSo what? If predators cannot talk to children over SnapChat, that's a win, wouldn't you say? The only valid argument I see against ChatControl is that fundamentally, you cannot know what it is reporting. It's not like if there would be an open source list of illegal material together with the hashes, right? If you cannot audit what is being reporting (with whatever means necessary to make sure it is doing what it should be doing), then whoever controls it could abuse it. That's the problem. That's the reason not to implement it. But it's completely overwhelmed by the flood of invalid arguments.
- Saline9515 1y agoI think that a world where underage children can't access tik tok and snapchat is an acceptable cost to keep our rights for privacy.
- demosito666 1y ago> The only valid argument Really? The only one?
- palata 1y agoReally, yes. I am against ChatControl myself, and I am genuinely struggling to find credible messages against it.
- 1y ago
- jimbo808 1y agoAnyone using a mobile device for CSAM is in prison by now.
- palata 1y agoPredators use mainstream social media to enter in contact with children.
- prmoustache 1y agoMost victims of child abuse know their aggressor because it is part of their social circle: dad, mother, uncle, brother, sport coach or a friend of the parents/sibling.
- palata 1y agoMost, not all of them. Or are you saying that we should not care about the others?
- AlexandrB 1y agoIt's impossible to stop all crime without an all-encompassing surveillance state. At some point you have to set boundaries for what the state is allowed to do in the name of safety.
- palata 1y agoAgreed. But then you have to explain how you set your boundary. You can't just say that the right boundary is yours. ChatControl will protect some kids. If your argument is "yeah, shit happens", you won't convince anyone. If your argument is "yes, but at a great cost for society", then you need to explain what the cost is. Saying "your freedom" is worth exactly as much as "but CSAM" when said from the other side. It's not enough. What is the tangible risk of ChatControl?
- 1y ago
- zenlot 1y ago> A few decades ago, all communications were unencrypted and people were fine. A few decades ago, a user base using whatever was available was about 99% lower than now. As well as governments were so illiterate that they could not read with the tech they had even those unencrypted messages.
- palata 1y agoSnowden was more than a decade ago. The NSA was recording everything.
- zenlot 1y agoA few decades ago implies 1990s or early 2000s. In 1990 he was 7 years old. In early 2000 - 17 years old.
- palata 1y agoa few a small number of units or individuals
- 1dontnkow_ 1y agoA few is at least 3 because then you'd use "a couple". So its 3 decades or more, which is 30 years at least.
- op7 1y agoAll communications were unencrypted because encrypting them would have incurred unduly burdensome processing. Nowadays computers can encrypt and decrypt on the fly for virtually free.
- palata 1y agoSure. Still people considered themselves free and living in democracies. Why wouldn't it be the case today?
- prmoustache 1y agoPeople using online communication system were a niche, not the norm andost people didn't have the tool and knowledge to access someone else's digital communication. It is not the case anymore.
- ulrikrasmussen 1y agoWe also didn't have AI models that politicians believed could detect bad behavior on a mass scale. Implementing Stasi level mass surveillance would be very expensive back then, even if there was full access to all communication. Now the proposal is to make a model try to categorize your messages and flag you. I believe that politicians believe that AI models can do this well without negative consequences. But I also think they forget that a model with 99.99% specificity applied to ten million messages will still falsely label 1000 as harmful.
- tormeh 1y agoMost illegal things go on Telegram for some reason. I guess Signal doesn't have the required features.
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoFounder in jail.
- palata 1y agoIt only proves that people doing illegal stuff mostly have no clue about security...
- AlexandrB 1y ago> If you have more control, obviously it's easier to track criminals. So why are criminals not being tracked? Seems like there's a shit ton of cameras everywhere but stores are still locking everything valuable behind glass. The benefits of this stuff never seem to materialize in practice.
- palata 1y agoSorry, but you won't convince anyone with that argument. That's my point: there are good arguments against ChatControl. Better focus on them.