gloppers

5 ms·

1.
by gloppers 4y ago
If my phone got stolen, the police would be investigating the person who stole it. Inventing outlandish scenarios isn't really a good argument here.
2.
by gloppers 4y ago
I don't agree that having a CSAM detection algorithm running in your messaging client is a violation of privacy. If it detects something and alerts the relevant authorities, there will then be a proportional reduction of privacy while
3.
by gloppers 4y ago
It's not unlimited power, this is a specific power for a specific scenario - detection of probable CSAM in a person's messages.
4.
by gloppers 4y ago
That is a broader consumer rights issue which, I agree, the EU should do something about too. But adding a clause to this regulation would not solve that wider problem.
5.
by gloppers 4y ago
Yes that sounds fine to me. We have specially trained police in this category of crimes, for good reason. I trust them to investigate fairly and proportionately. If we cast aside the hyperbole and look at the actual details of what is being
6.
by gloppers 4y ago
What do you mean "flagged as criminal"? In EU we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. No-one is criminal unless they have been through the process of justice. The scenario you are describing just isn't going to
7.
by gloppers 4y ago
No need to be so rude. From the law enforcement side, that is the system working as it should - the police investigated and cleared him of any wrongdoing. That Google can close someone's account for any reason and without any recourse
8.
by gloppers 4y ago
That old adage " if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear " is oft berated in these sort of discussions, but it really does apply here. This regulation is for the purposes of criminal investigation into ser