That's not CSAM right? But who knows how the AI will mark those happy pics? Some quirk in its programming and training leading to them being pushed way up whatever ranking is used? It's a nude child after all, and that is most likely one of the few things such an algorithm can detect quite reliably.
The automated filter won't care about the context though, and if any of the recent failures of algorithms ruining peoples lives are anything to go by (the Dutch Toeslagenaffaire comes to mind), being flagged by the CSAM filter is a high risk event — even if you can clear your name later by human intervention — because now you are on a list.
1: People tend to conjure up horrific images of underage children getting raped by adults when they hear 'CSAM' or 'child pornography', but when you read up on the legal definitions used it becomes very vague, quite fast. A seventeen year old boy sending a dick pic to his 18 year old lover is producing child pornography and can in many jurisdictions be sentenced as such, and nudism of any minor can be seen as CSAM if the pose they strike can be construed as 'erotic' — yet there is no clear definition of what this means, falling squarely into “I'll know it when I see it” territory.
The legislators know, from experience, that it's hard to argue against measures to protect children from predators, and so they are free to launch controversial and unacceptable measures. Once in place, it will be extended to other purposes.
The same as always.
> In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand.
They had a great 20 year run on the terrorism narrative, but they need a new nightmare, and they’ve apparently settled on child predators.
Beware of Gell-Mann Amnesia.
Btw, I suspect politicians always used the protection-from-nightmares just as much as promising utopia.
The tune of the poem is more important than the words to him.
Lots of people listen to him, he isn't just some guy.
Same could be said for David Attenborough or Errol Morris, but that's not enough influence to be called "hypernormalization." Shining a light on how power functions is a gnatbite to, say, lawmakers banning abortion and homelessness, enforcing building codes, drafting a generation of males to war, engaging in armed combat against miners, etc. Even a documentarian with a mirrored ideology, say, Steve Bannon couldn't be said to be hypernormalizing- only communicating.
I re-watched some of "Century of Self"  to evaluate this statement. Much of it is primary sources: interviews.
Curtis has a very specific world view, or world vibe, let's say whereas Attenborough does have views about the world but not much else beyond visual grandeur.
His earlier stuff is definitely better than his more recent work, but I refer specifically to the hypernormalization documentary because it's absolutely full of "Syria this", "Assad this", "[large country or company] decided to do [remarkably simple thing]". Maybe it's right, but the point is that it's structured and edited in a way where he wants to make you feel his argument that the world is being forced into a state of inaction, not convince you that his argument is correct.
In this specific documentary, he is undeniably flying extremely close to the sun in how he presents his argument versus what he is arguing against. He argument is all about the "theys" and the men in palaces, and obviously some decisions are, but some inference one makes in this mindset are simply the result of being fooled by randomness.
Don't get me wrong, I like listening to Adam Curtis docs while I'm working, I just think that he goes too far. When he is covering identifiable flaws he is absolutely brilliant, e.g. his piece on Nick Leeson is really nicely done, when he is kind of mumbling about some kind of incompetent conspiracy to do [something] he is often charismatic but shallow.
Also (a point about documentary filmmaking in general) the use of interviews is actually something I sort of disagree to an extent with unless it's a documentary like the fog of war where it's about a person in particular. It is extremely easy to manipulate interview.
This (https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI?t=90) is an extreme example demonstrated by Charlie Brooker, but you can be really subtle. And what if they're lying? What if you end up lying by accident? Trust but verify.
https://youtu.be/itqMwuB8gOk This is an interesting documentary about secret maps and information in Britain. I find it interesting, use my above writing as a barometer for whether that entices you or not.
just a second, we've got the new Russia - Ukraine nightmare.
Find a Ukrainian living through the war and ask them if it's a manufactured nightmare or a real one...
(Just to be sure, here is a reminder that some HN members are in that. No need to find - it's part of this public.
The author of Leaflet is the first that comes to (my) mind, and many others then.)
Granted I watched all his documentaries...
Unless you are going through a nasty divorce and you future ex starts throwing accusations of you keeping and constantly watching those videos.
Anyone who wants a dumb TV or an offline computer must be a pedophile. /s
as far as I know the delays are more about giving apple's friends in hollywood some time to cleanup than caving to libertarian outrage
Do you have a source on this?
Do you have a guess about who is behind that lasting global push against private communications?
8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?"
- like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for
the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers,
terrorists, and pedophiles.
In Italy we had 67 different governments since 1946.
What can they do with CSAM data?
Government can't blackmail citizen, they can't use CSAM scans for other purposes, they can't even authorize a scan, because that's the justice system prerogative.
Do you really believe that in Europe governments are in control of everything like it happens in Russia or in North Korea?
They are as weak as they can be.
> Government can't blackmail citizen, they can't use CSAM scans for other purposes, they can't even authorize a scan, because that's the justice system prerogative.
In the United States, legal blackmail is called a "plea bargain". You agree to admit you're guilty of a crime, even if you aren't, in return for the government not pursuing harsher charges against you. This occurs without trial, because of course the whole point of the plea bargain is to avoid going to trial.
Why would an innocent defendant want to avoid trial? Well, good lawyers are extremely expensive, and public defenders are extremely overworked. Also, police will often say whatever they need to say on the stand to get a conviction and justify their arrest. How many cops are ever jailed themselves for perjury?
> In this essay I shall address the modem American system of plea bargaining from a perspective that must appear bizarre, al though I hope to persuade you that it is illuminating. I am going to contrast plea bargaining with the medieval European law of torture.
> My thesis is that there are remarkable parallels in origin, in function, and even in specific points of doctrine, between the law of torture and the law of plea bargaining. I shall suggest that these parallels expose some important truths about how criminal justice systems respond when their trial procedures fall into deep disorder.
Colloquially when Americans say “government” they are referring to the entire state, including not just elected officials but professional civil servants, police, courts, intelligence agencies, etc.
You have definitely not had 67 different governments since 1946 in the sense that I think was meant.
This becomes beyond confusing, impressive, when you realize that 'Minister' is an expression for "servant" (cpr. "civil servant" etc.) as a derivation from 'minus' - 'Minister' is the opposite of 'Master' ('Ma[gi]ster')!)
I've studied English, not American.
So government to me means means "the group of people who officially control a country", like in this BBC headline "Netanyahu out as new Israeli government approved".
We definitely had 67 governments.
Or 67 cabinets, if you prefer.
If you're using the same kind of terminology, the federal US has had probably 117 governments, as this is the 117th Congress. However, we as Americans don't necessarily consider this a "new government", in that many of the institutions aren't radically different. We still have the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, we still have the FBI, we still have the CIA, we still have the Social Security Administration, we still have the NTSB, we still have the FAA, etc. For Americans, the institutions are a massive part of the identity of "the Federal government", and unless all the institutions change its pretty much seen as a continuous government.
Its definitely a messy turn of phrase which means different things in different contexts. Either way, while Italy has had 67 cabinets/governments, I imagine a lot of institutions have stayed the same. The ability for abuse is based in the institutions, the will to abuse is often with the politicians. So its not like a "new government" woudl somehow wipe clean all the record collections and ability for the State to act on it, you just have different people telling people to pull the levers a little different every few years.
So it's the combination of PM (Mario Draghi right now) and Ministers, appointed by the head of State (that is now Sergio Mattarella)
We had 67 of them in 75 years.
Regardless, if debating in good faith you should respond to what people clearly mean, not to what you feel the words they’re using should mean in “correct” English.
> Or 67 cabinets, if you prefer.
Absolutely nobody is disputing this. The Wikipedia link is unnecessary.
you're wrong: I never said I was using the correct English, I said that in the English that I have studied it is called a government.
It's called government here too
I'm not making up words. If in America it means something different it's irrelevant, we're not talking about America.
> Absolutely nobody is disputing this. The Wikipedia link is unnecessary.
Anyway, somebody was disputing this
You have definitely not had 67 different governments since 1946
> You have definitely not had 67 different governments since 1946 in the sense that I think was meant.
You are engaging in bad-faith pedantry, and this discussion is now a waste of time.
I cut the irrelevant part, I always assume people say things that represent "what they understood or meant".
In that case the original post saying " you haven't had 67 governments in the way I mean" is completely useless, irrelevant, pedantic and in the end brought us to this conversation
Nobody cares what "government" means to an american when the context is not America.
Believe it or not, USA is only a tiny fraction of the World population and that tony fraction is in a good part not American too.
What Americans think, believe or mean is irrelevant to 95.75% of the Planet.
Remember the Servers: "Strict in formulating the output, loose in interpreting the input".
Didn't know it wasn't used like that in Italy.
Please read the comment more carefully. I'm saying about what I am personally aware, not a universal truth.
Very consistently, when anyone (including Americans) talks about parliamentary systems, the number of governments or changes of government refer to the same thing as the number of administrations or change of administration when referring to the US system of government.
There are other contexts where there might be ambiguity, but this is one of them.
Anyway, even if you’re right, it doesn’t matter. Nobody was talking about parliamentary systems or Italy specifically when the person who kicked off this thread warned about “the government” having too much power. It’s absolutely obvious to me that they meant “the state” and were misinterpreted by people who thought the word was being used in its parliamentary sense.
This isn’t some feature of American government either: in the US local law enforcement is often completely divorced from the state and federal political process and is run independently at a local level, with sheriffs and district attorneys even being elected positions in many jurisdictions. There is no national police - the closest thing is the FBI (though there are a few other national law enforcement agencies), but it can go after only crimes involving multi-states or interstate commerce, and at a high level it is run essentially like state law enforcement organizations in other countries, largely independent of the political process, although at the very top it is politically appointed, usually with a career official placed in charge.
That's only because in USA the justice system depend on the elected president and elected representatives of the State.
But that's not true in Europe.
Law enforcement forces and justice system employees only have to obey to the laws, not to the politicians in power.
They can't be fired at will.
That’s absolutely not true in the US. Almost all law enforcement has no connection to the President whatsoever. The FBI does have a connection, the director is appointed with legislative assent, but FBI employees cannot be fired at will by politician or even the director.
Further, the FBI didn’t even exist for most of American history, so that’s not why the term evolved the way it did.
Also, your country almost certainly operates similarly to US federal law enforcement. Or are you claiming there’s no democratic oversight of or input into the justice system at all?
Further, if you don’t consider the justice system part of the government, what is it?
Frontex want's to have a word with you.....
And the Italian coastguard let people drown because it's law?....or maybe because it's a political thing? You cant separate the government and justice system completely.
Let's hear your thesis here...
> And your Italian coastguard let people drown because it's law?....
They actually don't.
Some politician (a Trump and Putin supporter, BTW!) tried to make them drawn for political gains and was beaten by a German young Captain Woman. 
many people in Europe protested against what Salvini was doing.   
France officially condemned what was happening.
Because you know, it's not a dictatorship here or a place where the police kills you if you're of the wrong color, the people still oppose to what Politicians and governments try to do.
Please, don't try to teach me how my country works...
 Paris: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/127BA/production...
 Vienna https://taz.de/picture/3536744/624/23312167_Carola_Rackete_S...
 Germany https://media.tio.ch/files/domains/tio.ch/images/4bsj/huh5.j...
Since your talking about Rackete....
>>The EU is no longer rescuing drowning migrants and the number of refugees continues to fall.
You know that's why she got into troubles?...bringing drowning refugees to europa's coast.
>many people in Europe protested against what Salvini was doing.
So here you gave already proof that politicians can tell the coast guard what todo right?...because the sea-law is pretty clear..you have to help, no matter what.
Thank you for the proof.
In May 2022 already most than 10 thousand people reached the coasts of Italy via Mediterranean sea. 
Between 2013 and 2016, over 600 thousand people have landed here.
I think Italy is doing its share on that side.
How many of those immigrants went to Hungary, for example?
That's where EU is failing IMO, it should not be permitted to Orban to refuse redistribution of migrants.
Not on CSAM regulations. If governments wnat to know what people are up to, they have to simply open social networks and wait for the people to write it publicly.
No need to spy their conversations.
The reactions here are completely paranoia fueled.
On another note: if USA can please stop bombing African countries, maybe people shouldn't escape from the puppet regimes they install there...
> So here you gave already proof that politicians can tell the coast guard what todo right
They can try forcing the law.
What Salvini did was and still is unlawful.
His popularity dropped in a couple of years to a quarter of what it was.
you can also convince people to march armed against Capital Hill, doesn't mean that that's a President's prerogative, it only means that crazy people are everywhere.
At least we haven't built cages for immigrants' children.
> You know that's we she got into troubles...bringing drowning refugees to europa's coast.
No, it was because Salvini was (temporarily thank God) Interior Minister of Italy.
> Thank you for the proof.
I proved it to you that if the system is resilient, no assault on democracy will last forever.
Next time we'll talk about what constitute a rightful political action and what doesn't.
In a dozen lessons you might learn how democracy works.
Politicians can tell the Coastguard what todo, and they don't "only" do what law says....that was the whole point.
>What Salvini did was and still is unlawful.
Yes and? ...i mean who cares, who gives him a slap on the wrist? And why is the coastguard following a unlawful order?...if they just follow law?
No, but I really believe European leaders are jealous of the authoritarian powers they lack, and are working to resolve that.
You can believe anything you want.
That wouldn't make you right.
national parliaments have to pass these legislation, EU is formed by 26 countries, all with very different ideas, traditions, political stances and objectives.
Yeah he would love to be the sole leader of his country.
In my country?
those that tried have been destroyed by their same allies, out of fear of having to live in someone else's shadow.
If everyone wants to be the one and only leader, nobody will ever be.
Opposing forces always balance themselves.
Funny that all USA businesses lament that there is too much democracy in EU (like too much democracy is bad!), but now HN says that there is an imminent risk of totalitarianism...
Democracy is already crumbling.
And American has the NSA!
>Do you really believe that in Europe governments are in control of everything like it happens in Russia or in North Korea?
Wait you think Russia is in control of it's citizen? Oh man, western propaganda seams to work even better then the russian counterpart.
Because they can't, the moment they do, they'll be roasted for doing it.
Those who tried, failed miserably.
Justice system here is not run by governments, it's a completely separated power.
> Wait you think Russia is in control of it's citizen? Oh man, western propaganda seams to work even better then the russian counterpart.
They control everything in the control rooms, which is not even the case oin EU democracies.
Do you really believe EU governments will control every communication over the wire if this law is approved in the 26 EU countries?
The Dutch IRS ran a shadow profile system for over ten years, resulting in countless families in financial trouble, numerous divorces, suicides, and kids being removed from their parents and placed in foster care. Compensation/restitution for the affected families is finally coming, but its tragically slow progress is adding insult to injury.
And the government that stepped down over it, is still (again) in power. The very same prime minister that has presided over the country during the entire time this program ran was re-elected after his previous cabinet dissolved.
None of the people working at the IRS have even seen the inside of a courtroom, at least not as defendant. Such a roasting they got.
Ah you think the government sends an official person and start to blackmailing you?
>Justice system here is not run by governments, it's a completely separated power.
Oh c'mon, it's pretty naive to think like that.
>They control everything in the control rooms, which is not even the case oin EU democracies.
Ah yes the russian control room's who had not heard of that.
>which is not even the case oin EU democracies.
I really cant believe that you think the EU is so much better. But i see, the propaganda to implement that we are the good one's worked pretty well for you.
You mean governments are run by criminals that break the law?
If being blackmailed over alleged pedo pornography in that case is what concerns you the most, I think you have a pretty simplistic view of what's happening in the real World right now...
> I really cant believe that you think the EU is so much better.
I really can't believe you don't see it!
> But i see, the propaganda to implement that we are the good one's worked pretty well for you.
I don't really think you are making any sense.
You just posted propaganda links of a commercial email service and of European pirate party which is the most biased source of information about digital rights in Europe, they are so small (only 4 seats in the parliament, 3 from Czech Republic, one from Germany, zero from any other EU country) and and in need of funds that are constantly screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" and have been for more than a decade now, for no reason.
I consider myself much more on the left side of things than the pirate party and have been participating on discussions about digital freedoms as a tech consultant for the EU commission, the pirate brought virtually nothing to the table.
But it's working for them, their MP salaries are still flowing in their pockets anyway.
Ask them why their HQ is in Luxembourg City (one of the richest cities in the World) and not in some more piratesque place...
Ah yeah...the old propaganda because you have to implement backdoors in your encrypted email-service...i don't know what you try to proof here, but it's kind of disgusting.
>You mean governments are run by criminals that break the law?
Ever heard of Berlusconi? Or maybe Nixon....or your King Juan Carlos ;)
> I think that's what their warning shot is
These arguments have been in discussion for at least a decade.
Why do you think they want to read your email?
What purpose could it serve?
Do you really think France will accept to put the email of their citizens out in the clear if Germany refuses? (nations can still delay the implementation of regulations, technically forever)
> There is a reason we have search warrants
They are still required.
CSAM is only what Apple already does (and that's another reason why I don't buy Apple products).
It certainly feels, as if they are trying to do that.
Putin's been there for 22 years, Kim is there by rights of birth, in my country the PM has been there for 18 months and it looks like he's not going to last till the natural end of the legislature, in 2023.
His career as dictator 4 life looks pretty bleak from my POV.
It's almost every politician since the invention of privacy. It's not a cabal, they just have common goals.
Edit: can't reply. The endgame is control over the population - taxing them, imprisoning them, etc. Why? I don't know, some people just like to be in (absolute) power.
Every single government ever?
That in turn makes such a system far less useful to intelligence services and authoritarian regimes. You don't want to tell your target that you're looking for them and which keywords not to use!
I wonder if this is part one, and then a later revision will require centralised scanning rather than on-device scanning.
If you embed a neural net trained to detect "some" kind of images, I would love to know how one could "dump" the list of things the net is looking for. Basically it's not how it works - the neural net is more or less a black box, you can't tell what kind of things it's looking for by just looking at its contents. You give it an image, it says it is a match or not, based on some internal algorithm - but looking at that algorithm tells you nothing about what kind of images would produce positive matches.
IMO, the politicians just want more authority and power. The GDPR gives them power to sue and fine large companies, ie, free money. I don't think it's about privacy any more than encryption backdoors are about fighting crime or photo scanning is about protecting children.
I think the Apple design used some fancy tricks to run the comparisons without ever decrypting the reference data and even if that wasn't possible almost every new device comes with some kind of "trusted" platform module that only "trusted" actors can access.
Our general mentality also seems to be a lot more lax and supportive of kids being victims of their own mistakes rather than going "yeah, that's illegal, let's throw a fine on top". Almost as if we acknowledge teens are going to experiment.
Edit: for the non-Dutch, the link goes to an article by the Dutch equivalent of The Onion and the headline says "Opstelten [our minister of Security and Justice at the time] says new regulations are needed or else child pornography".
Even with the lockdown protest issues it seems like it should be on the shortlist if you want to move to the EU as an American.
But I should add I left a couple of years before I even heard of the WEF. Me leaving The Netherlands was for other reasons.
Out of curiosity, did you live in other countries as well? I have the impression that in NL there certainly is a certain level of racism, but it's less systemic/endemic/widespread than in other countries (including parts of the US).
It's an opinion based on very limited data and personal observation, so take it with a grain of salt.
>For example, sexting is no longer punishable if this happens with consent. This is seen as sexual experimentation behavior among youth.
It has nothing to do with scanning private information. It only legalizes what would realistically never appear in court except for twisted revenge cases most of the Dutch shake their heads at (girl sends boyfriend nudes under mutual consent, they break up, now ex-boyfriend tries to accuse her of breaking the law which is technically true, but absurd).
: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/seksuele-misdrijven... (Dutch)
However, particular servers in the Netherlands have been hosting a lot of CSAM and revenge porn type of material. The EU is increasingly becoming a major host for illegal and dangerous material. This is a reality and a problem.
The problem IMHO is that it is really hard to have a reasonable discussion on how to tackle this. Reasonable voices are often the quietest.
In Germany we woke up to really bad experience with pedophiles actually loudly undermining political parties in the past (particularly the Greens). Just as a reminder: This is not all black and white.
One of those other solutions is simply teaching teens the potential consequences of these actions. One sibling linked to an article 10 years ago. This was about the time schools in The Netherlands were filled with lectures regarding lover boys, sexual and emotional blackmail, and more. Despite that, many would still put themselves in a position a malicious person could take advantage of them, but at least you're arming teens with information on which to act autonomously.
I simply doubt the EU's proposed solution would really help prevent that many cases. It might even drive the more rebellious teens into sections of the internet where the consequences are far higher. Which makes giving up all that privacy a pretty hefty price, for both minors and adults.
Of course, it's all a pretence for getting access to read all of your data. It might be a language thing, but the wording of the report was such that they were almost stating this explicitly.
Honestly, what.the.hell are these clowns thinking?!
So basically, a whistleblower takes photos of some very incriminating documents, someone gets accused of eg. money laundering, hashes of those images get added to the "csam" database, and you find the first person (via metadata) who had that image on their phone.
Also, in some more repressive countries, an image of a famous cartoon bear photoshopped to look like some president can be added, and all the people who look/have/download images (memes) like that, can get put on a "list".
This is when it gets scary, demonising people based on a hash collision with no evidence or context.
1: This is not something I'm personally at risk of, because my parents are tech savvy enough not to post nude pics of a toddler anywhere but in a private chat with his parents (i.e., me and my wife).
And you already have received them!
The Dutch Toeslagenaffaire¹ was a massive failure of using discriminating algorithms to judge if tax payers were defrauding the state (most of those marked as fraudsters were innocent and many lost jobs, housing, and hundreds even had their children placed into foster care (!) due to the cascading effects caused by being on this list).
The British Post Office scandal² is another famous case that will be familiar to those from the UK.
I mean this is just blatantly false. History has shown us this is false. Even if you think the current government is fully comprised of kind-hearted, magnanimous, good people, what makes you think that will be the case for the next 10, 50, 100 years?
A story - I have a google alert set up for my name. Someone in a different state with the same name was recently arrested. I've gotten 5-6 alerts every day for the last week from various local (to him) newspaper and television station websites announcing his arrest. Name, address, age, alleged offenses, etc. How many will I get if he's found innocent two years from now? My guess is, at most, 1 or 2. Why would we want AI, even with human verification (which is just them checking the hashes match, anyway, so not real "verification"), to trigger the cascade of events that would occur from someone getting arrested for CSAM based on this technology? It would ruin someone's life. Now if I'm being honest, if someone actually has CSAM, I couldn't care less if they end up homeless and their life is actually ruined. But taking a step back, and acknowledging that someone innocent will get caught by this, as it's just a matter of time at that point, it's not worth it. If we had a society where you could just say in a job interview "oh yeah that was a false positive, I can prove it" and that's that, then there's a bit more of an argument to be made. But that's not our society. Once your name pops up with this kind of thing, that's who you are for the rest of your life, guilty or not.
That sounds like a problem that's very unique to the weird justice system in US(and UK to an extent, unfortunately), where the law allows publishing the name and other details of an arrested person. In most(if not all?) EU countries that is strictly forbidden - until the trial is done, any arestee can only be reported on by their first name and with the face hidden. Avoids runining innocent lives like American media do.
> But taking a step back, and acknowledging that someone innocent will get caught by this, as it's just a matter of time at that point, it's not worth it
Couldn't you extrapolate that to law enforcement in general?
It's not clear to me if you're saying that AI specifically will falsely flag people and / or if you're worried about being identified as someone else with the same name getting arrested for something. Either way both scenarios exist without any AI being involved.
Personally I was falsely flagged because someone driving a car with a number plate that belonged to me was caught over a dozen times driving ridiculous speeds and it took me the better part of a year to convince the justice system it wasn't me. All because they didn't know how to update some database records with the other guy's name and despite the fact that no human ever claimed I was driving that car (the other guy said it was him not me, the car leasing company said it wasn't me, plenty of paperwork was provided). Massive pain in the ass (and nowhere near as serious as CSAM) and it required lawyers and court appearances but I'm not advocating to abolish speed checks.
Not sure. There's a lot of selection bias here: all of the US speaks English, which you can presumably understand.
Local scandals in some obscure EU country might only be reported in languages you don't understand.
Yes I do think that. I'm very familiar with how the EU institutions work and I don't like it, so I'm no fan boy and certainly not trying to defend these kind of proposals.
I realize I'm preaching to a very cynical crowd here but I just don't see EU countries locking up innocent people accused of being pedophiles en masse by some garbage AI (different story entirely in the US or China).
Justice here massively leans toward giving people the benefit of the doubt, imposing light sentences etc. much to everyone's frustration.
555 wrongful fraud convictions because of Second Sight, between 1996 and 2014, with a 2015 claim of no wrong doing and no system problems , in the UK.
Rubina Nami, jailed for a year. Seema Misra jailed for longer, whilst innocent and pregnant.
Noel Thomas jailed for twelve weeks at the age of 60 - the judge refusing to consider a flaw in the computer system to be possible, because of a report that concluded:
> If the Horizon system was flawed, I would expect to see issues raised by all 14,000 branches in the UK and not only a handful.
They locked up people over a garbage AI system over something much less sensitive than protecting children. Recently.
Hell even nice sweden accused him of rape, even if they knew that it's bogus.
Spain jails you just because you want to be independent, just image that Washington jails a Texan governor for trying to be independent.
Europe is in parts not far away from the Turkish legal system.
If anything, the 21st century has proven quite a few people are more than willing to do so when they deem the lack of true positives to be the greater evil. Or even just doing it for their own benefit.
Shit happens everywhere but where am I in Europe if anything there's a lack of law enforcement in the sense that prison terms always seem to be considered too low, people with sentences under X months don't actually go to jail because of overcrowding, police is constantly frustrated that people they pick off the street are immediately released again by judges etc.
You can't go telling "yeah we really care about innocent people" when you let an algorithm wreak havoc producing false positives and then take ages to fix it while the families are still dealing with the aftermath. That's the opposite, caring for true positives despite the potential false positives produced.
I'd also ask you to take a few trips down some ideologies. If you believe "EU is so nice it can do no wrong", you'll probably be cured of it soon when you realize extremists are spread all around the world, and have no qualms exercising their sense of justice even if it hurts innocent people.
it was about fraud.
And it happened in the Netherlands, which aren't exactly the cleanest of the countries (just check their ties with drug cartels money ), so it's Netherlanders that should be worried, not EU citizens.
It happens all the time, I don't know anymore how many wrongful tax bills I have received over the past 30 years, you just show the documents that prove you're in the right (if you are) and that's about it.
We pay accountants for a reason.
Lawyers are still free in my country if you can't afford one, event though it's very hard go to prison for tax evasion, at least not in all the European countries I know, even less likely for undue child benefits.
 Money laundering is a growing problem in the Netherlands, with estimates suggesting that around €16 billion in illegal funds is laundered there every year — money derived from a range of criminal activities, including drug trafficking, sexual exploitation and extortion
It's not about them being evil. It's about them feeling justified to use the algorithm in the way it was used, which then lead to pretty dire consequences for many families, followed by a lack of action and a general lazy attitude towards the entire situation. Along with a general lack of foresight when they implemented it.
This is a very clear example of what happens when you optimize for true positives at the cost of false positives. You can argue the costs and benefits, but you can't argue "people don't want to harm innocents" when they select to do so in a scenario where it very clear does harm innocents.
"Caring about not harming innocents" gets dropped the moment it feels inconvenient. That's something people need to be aware of instead of living in their idealist dream world.
that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, it's completely OT and, frankly, who cares?
It is not EU fault, it's Netherlands's fault.
EU doesn't control Netherlands.
People could interpret the comment in question as "name examples in Europe", as if commenter was trying to imply "European countries aren't as crazy and totalitarian as the US / the remainder of the world". Several commenters gave examples close to home.
But somehow the EU, as in European Union, will be the exception, and we can't be skeptical of that. Get real.
No, I'm being correct.
Netherland problems that are not caused by EU regulations, are not EU problems.
Deal with that.
> But somehow the EU, as in European Union, will be the exception, and we can't be skeptical of that.
I never said that EU is gonna be an exception, just that this particular problem happens everywhere, tax fraud are probably the most common case of fraud World wide.
So implying that's proof of some potential problem inside a new EU regulation that has nothing to do with tax fraud is naive at best, but let's get real, you're being not naive, you're simply being biased.
Cooperated corruption of multiple European countries, governments, prosecutors & supernational bodies (e.g. Interpol).
Edit: sorry, I thought this was in reply to my sibling comment. See the two examples mentioned there.
Hilariously naive approach to government overreach.
"Naked Baby Photos Lead to Parents' Arrest"
These cases are absurd but we're talking about the EU here, not the US.
See for example how we treat people who have few grams of weed on them. We protect innocent people, you say? Bullshit, we crack down on gardening shops if they're even just slightly connected to the weed culture!
Do you have a source for that? First, by triggering the filter, there's an assumption of guilt. The filter wouldn't trigger if there wasn't something bad there, right? Second, someone, somewhere is being incentivized in their job to increase the number of "detections" so they can increase their arrest numbers. Why would they want to "lighten their workload"? They're the cops. They just ask for more resources and get them.
It's a waste of time for everyone. Prisons are overcrowded, court cases take years to get going, criminals being caught red handed are released before cops even get the paperwork done, there's plenty of rock star defense lawyers.
> They're the cops. They just ask for more resources and get them.
Not in my part of Europe, on the contrary.
Meanwhile France last year just dropped the age of consent to 15 and if you check Wikipedia you'll most EU countries have it set around the same age.
It's doubtful you could even find a single case someone being prosecuted because their actual underage boy / girlfriend sent them an explicit picture.
France's age of consent has been 15, since 1945 (1982, if you weren't straight). What they did last year was add a Romeo & Juliet clause that allows for below that age if you're within five years of your partner and not committing something that would otherwise be considered assault. So a 15 yro and a 12yro won't end up in a rape case for being partners.
They tightened overly loose definitions, basically. Not dropped - raised. (A lot to do with this  particular case that demonstrated just how damn loose the laws were.)
Previously, it was _assumed_ that consent occurred. Such as in the case I pointed out - the court struggled to say there was not willing engagement between a 28 yro and an 11 yro.
Historically speaking, France has some of the loosest laws around consent in the world.
So we're now expected to teach our kids what erotic poses are so they know not to accidentally do that during family pics, lest daddy or mommy wind up in jail? The future is fucked up.
Of course this is why they have human moderation before conviction. But I absolutely don't want my private images being reviewed because they may be CSAM. This is basically assuming that I have likely done something wrong and intruding my privacy because of that.
Those pictures will be seen by you and grandma, but also maybe by employees of whoever you use to backup the pictures, whatever security services have a need to view the images, whichever police forensics department may need to look through your or grandmas phone if it were to be confiscated, etc.
Those employees need a good work environment, and can't be expected to look at your naked three year old.
In exceptional cases the police may need to see them. But even in that case there is nothing wrong with these pictures. Pictures of gore and literal shits are legal and while I agree that it can make this job very taxing. But a child swimming naked is not the problem here.
That's why we have a justice system.
Specifically not a common law based one, which is kinds scary per se.
People are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof's on the prosecution.
We are talking about EU here, not Sudan.
2. What makes you think every government in the entire EU will always have the people's best interests at heart?
3. What makes you think #2 is true even today?
It seems like this technology could be very easy to abuse, to great public detriment. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
they have more pressing issues already!
and some of them have already implemented worse ways of surveilling their citizens.
In this regards, even USA is far worse than EU!
> 2. What makes you think every government in the entire EU will always have the people's best interests at heart?
I don't, that's why we constantly check on them and change them if we don't like them
> 3. What makes you think #2 is true even today?
Because I live in EU and everywhere else I look the situation is far worse.
> It seems like this technology could be very easy to abuse, to great public detriment. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
Like any technology!
Funny that guns are abused daily in US but the biggest preoccupation of HN is potential abuse of CSAM filters in EU...
Which would also be illegal!
If the filter has to be used for CSAM content, it can't be used for anything else.
> Because I live in EU and everywhere else I look the situation is far worse.
"It's worse other places" doesn't answer the question. The EU's government isn't perfect and I don't see any safeguards in this proposal. It's ripe for abuse.
> Funny that guns are abused daily in US
Whataboutism nonsense, nobody is talking about guns except you.
> If the filter has to be used for CSAM content, it can't be used for anything else.
Utterly fanciful. Once this exists and is in place, it can and will be expanded to other things. Eventually a government you don't like will be elected in your country, and they'll be able to expand this.
This tool in the hands of an authoritarian government is as dangerous as any firearm because it would allow them to track dissent.
Do you know someone or something that is?
> I don't see any safeguards in this proposal.
then write one and propose it!
or look better.
>It's ripe for abuse.
BY WHOM EXACTLY?
> Utterly fanciful. Once this exists and is in place, it can and will be expanded to other things.
Are you from the future or simply doubling down on your opinions, trying to pose them as unequivocal facts?
> This tool in the hands of an authoritarian government
There's no such thing in Europe, the closets thing to it it's Viktor Orban in Hungary.
Who is still more democratic than Trump.
Or it doesn't count since Germany is not a democracy?
you say that as a joke, but it's not completely false.
Half of Germany was still a dystopian 1984esque state 30 years ago. Those people are still alive, those kids are adults now. It doesn't surprise me at all that it can happen.
Anyway, it was one case in a small city where they tracked a witness of a crime, they didn't "destroy the privacy of all European citizenzs to create a surveillance state in EU"
Besides, WhatsApp and IG have the same (if not much more) metadata, given by the users while simply using the app, that are already being abused in any possible way. including selling them.
At least a tracing app is explicitly for tracing.
I never used a tracing app for COVID, problem solved.
But people (even my mom!) use WhatsApp, I can't escape that and can't escape Facebook knowing who I cal. when, for how long, even if the messages are encrypted, metadata is not.
I would very much prefer a call from the police to help them solve a crime than FB sending me unsolicited ads or worse.
The police can't drag you in jail and then in court, we are civilized people,they send a letter to you notifying you that they are investigating you and you have a right to the defense.
Law should be as unequivocal as possible.
Common law is the equivalent of the imperial units or driving on the left of the road.
They have been replaced by better units or superseded by more uniformly accepted standards.
Have you not actually read anything about the post ?
And obviously, I personally, can instruct anyone handling my child to not do that when such laws come into effect, but that doesn't change the fact that for many people such actions are completely normal (as it should be).
The homes of the people who champion this proposal should be thoroughly searched for child abuse materials every week. Naturally, their personal electronic devices should be taken for analysis. I understand this may cause them some inconvenience, but think of the children!
The basement seems like an adequate place for a wardrobe/diaper change, even though that makes the whole situation even weirder.
Here in the UK, the so-called “Snooper’s Charter” that was passed in 2016 allows bulk data collection and warrantless access to that data…unless you’re a member of parliament.
It's mind boggling. It would be nice if only 50% of the energy put into laws with questionable results like this, would be used to give victims of sexual child abuse more help and support (or, in many cases, some at all) to continue living as much as possible despite the monsters in their own heads that such sexual abuse creates, wouldn't it? :/
Sadly without official english subtitles, but you can run this article about it through deepl.com: https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/panorama/kinderpornog...
It's all about power and funding. If the problem was eradicated, then they would lose their purpose and funding.
Botnets are annoying to dismantle even within the EU, it's not even illegal in some countries to not remove reported malware.
I view such legislation as an excuse to their general incompetence.
If they somehow ever come to suspect me of these things I will gladly do anything I can to support their investigations. They can come by with a warrant, look through my message history specifically and only for evidence related to their investigation, it will happen in my presence, and no copies of my data will be made and/or fed into the basilisk. You know, how it would normally go.
What in the world are they thinking over there.
5:30am, loud knock at the door.
You open the door a crack to see who it is. Cops bust in.
You're immediately handcuffed and sat outside.
Cops take anything with a screen, usb plug, etc. All your media. All your computers. All your external hard drives.
Every one of these devices will be imaged, and archived prior to being searched. The data will be kept for years, to protect against inevitable appeals, etc.
But you know, good luck with your plan.
Also German lawyers seem to be far more trigger happy in a lot of cases than dutch like with copyright and not having your company info on your site etc; seems there is more litigation there like an industry looking for people to ‘sue’. Why aren’t people protesting or are they?
I don’t think it’s better in other European countries.
Ah, those famous words.
Other good points were brought up - why not dismiss the hard drive as evidence and use other “proof” such as network logs, computer thumbnails caches from the defendants personal computer, etc?
Personally I’m not sure if those ideas were ever explored.
There's a further consideration of whether you can refuse if the literal string of the password itself would incriminate you, but I don't believe that has been conclusively litigated.
Also, why don't they just beat the shit out of you to get the key?
It's better to not do or have anything illegal. Make it so you can say "I have nothing to hide", but don't give them access voluntarily because of that.
But they won't risk it for someone with a CSAM match or anything similarly uninteresting, and local authorities won't even be aware that it's something their government can do.
Still, don't do anything illegal, but I think for most people it's legitimate to have a threat profile that assumes that encryption is effective.
Sure, it could be a gradual decent into such a reality, but it will take a long time.
There's a constant push, at least in the US, for regulation on encryption. It's gotten consistently shot down thus far, thankfully. But it's a never-ending battle. And one day people will most likely become complacent enough to let go and feel the liberty melt away.
Just like the last couple generations have gotten increasingly soft on our right to bear arms. They've been conditioned to believe that it's dangerous, and boomer-like, and no longer important.
Sure, the US freedom of speech amendment protects more powerfully than in most countries. But I wouldn't be so confident once the rest of the world has given up
> due process of law
This is the precise inverse of how I feel about the general permanent monitor and analysis that is now being proposed. These systems are inaccurate, opaque, and uncontrollable. It makes me feel like cattle being driven towards the man with the rod.