Saying that this is about child protection is a blatant lie. This serves only as a stepping stone to introduce other screening criteria later. And with opaque ML models it will be very tedious to determine what the model is supposed to find.
Like everyone saying this is the spiral to dystopia has to contend with the fact that we’re already apparently living in one.
https://borncity.com/win/2020/08/16/microsoft-kontensperrung...
This is why I explicitly make on-site backups of anything that's in the cloud and don't store my passwords with Apple. If they suddenly decided I had CSAM for some reason, I'd be locked out of everything.
Other than the person having their Google account suspended which is a separate issue from the surveillance I see zero issue with the events as they happened. In a bygone era where you had to get photos developed I would have expected the 1 hour photo employee to do the same.
There is no evidence and little reason to believe this will protect children. Before infringing on innocent peoples privacy there must be some evidence that it will actually help protect children. There is no evidence to support this nor calls to study the efficacy idea. Makes me think protecting children is not the intention of their spying.
Basically the EU Commission punished her for being a whistleblower.
https://www-vpro-nl.translate.goog/argos/lees/nieuws/2019/Ge...
Why do you think this? What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children?
Helen Lovejoy wasn't lying, she was sincerely (but irrationally) concerned for the children.
HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments (that they are deliberately secretly plotting to be despotic, and using the cover of trying to protect children) with no actual evidence, just a lot of winks and eyebrow wiggling. Complete abdication of rational thinking.
Anyone with a bayesian world-model thinks this. It's one of the most tired and obvious lies of all time, to the point that "think of the children" is a well-known trope.
> What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children?
Their behavior would have to actually reflect such a stance.
Politicians in general are highly ignorant on technology and have no clue about the impact of ideas like this. They get advice from advisory boards populated by political science students that had internships at IT companies and are now 'advisor on AI in government'. Sometimes they get external advice from expensive consultants that tell them what they want to hear, especially if they think they might be able to sell more projects afterwards.
So, a politician who objectively wants to protect children in a modern world will come up with dumb ideas like this and get confirmation that it's not a dumb idea. It's Hanlon's Razor at work.
Because Zensursula has tried to pull off this trick before. Her party is very eager to introduce more surveillance and they like to brush off technical and ethical concerns.
Because it's happened before. Systems put in place nominally to fight child abuse end up being used for copyright enforcement.
If they sent people into the the real world (where the children are), instead of passively spying on bits and bytes
> HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments
Not a conspiracy theory, and not specific to HN. I dare say it's a mainstream opinion, which explains why they can't openly admit to it and the document had to be leaked (similar to Edward Snowden in the US). This comic predates HN: https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg
What would those people do in the real world? Kind of a rhetorical question but if you have a good answer then shoot :)
Ha, I don't think most HNers would be quick to say think their governments are capable of conspiracy. I think most would say it's just more your regular run of the mill taxpayer-funded incompetency.
More evidence is that this sort of crime is being exaggerated in its severity. E.g. this study found the risk of adulthood psychological trauma is minimal when relying on objective evidence of abuse.[1] It is filthy and bad, but the total damage seems hardly enough to justify abolishing privacy.
There is always going to be a tradeoff between safety and freedom.
What they'll do is listen to every online conversation anyone has.
Here we are discussing a government demanding that they are able to access all private communications in order to ensure it's all perfectly legal, and yet you don't see this as despotic.
So it's not a conspiracy, because so many people don't even see it as despotic they aren't afraid to do it in the open.
Losing the ability to have a private conversation online is so blatantly harmful to individual liberties I cannot comprehend how a thinking person isn't alarmed by it.