Olives @olives@qoto.org

Ugh... Is this an E.U. Commission or a marketing firm?

https://reason.com/2023/07/13/we-still-dont-know-the-full-extent-of-the-governments-warrantless-electronic-spying-program/ Commentary on NSA mass-surveillance.

https://reason.com/2023/07/13/david-sosa-says-mistakenly-arresting-him-twice-based-on-his-name-violated-his-rights-other-david-sosas-agree/ Poor David Sosa. This must really suck.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/13/school-in-cat-pupil-controversy-given-ofsted-all-clear-after-snap-inspection Ofsted fails to find imaginary hyped problems.

https://edri.org/our-work/how-eus-plan-to-digitising-travel-documents-might-affect-you/ Privacy at the E.U. border.

https://edri.org/our-work/open-letter-hundreds-of-scientists-warn-against-eus-proposed-csa-regulation/ These people wrote about the open letter.

Noting that censorship in itself can and would cause deaths, and would cause adverse psychological effects for a certain number of people.

Impinging on fundamental rights is not a victimless move.

https://reason.com/2023/07/12/1-year-after-chesa-boudins-recall-is-san-francisco-safer-under-his-successors-more-punitive-policies/ What do you think?

To be accurate, the E.U. Commission which is particularly holier than thou.

E.U. gloating about implementing really irritating censorship (what "age-appropriate design" is a euphemism for) for *everyone* (not just the "children").

Let's see what else is going on. Bringing out a victim to promote authoritarianism. A classic.

Have you considered the ethics of leading someone on, and simplifying every problem down to more blunt censorship?

Imagine running a company and worrying that Apple might siphon out sensitive data or communications with a Chat Stasi program.

This thing is a huge risk surface and someone would be a fool not to treat it as one.

It's such a one dimensional argument and it's hard to articulate just how bad it is.

If I were to cover some points:

1) Someone should have control over what runs on their devices. Programs should not be acting against their interests or without their consent.

In a way, that is the entire philosophy of the free software movement.

2) There is far more room for things to go wrong with a Chat Stasi program, in contrast, the most that might go wrong here is an image being erroneously hidden (with a prompt to make it visible) when it shouldn't be, or vice versa.

3) Apple doing a silly thing doesn't mean they should do another bad thing.

4) Someone doesn't have to use iMessage. They could use another program. Viva la free market.

5) Every argument which applies to the Chat Stasi equally applies to it here.

As expected, a "won't anyone think of the children?" activist is already making the argument that because Apple, foolishly, has an algorithm which hides explicit content in private chats (a feature no one ever asked for), it means it is equally reasonable to build the Chat Stasi.

I could see this coming from a light year away. Disingenuous, yet predictable.

I wanted to be extra clear here, and to avoid any ifs or buts. No ifs or buts. No cleverness. No games.

If the E.U. is to do something, it absolutely should be narrowly targeted at content of actual people.

The E.U. is the bluntest of blunt instruments.

That said, they shouldn't be violating anyone's privacy, and this proposal certainly does that.

Disingenuous sniffer dog comparisons don't change that invasion of privacy.

By the way, isn't it interesting how the War on Drugs, even here, is used to argue for invasions of civil rights?

I hate beating around the bush and I hate how the E.U. seemingly wants to do everything to do with the Internet, especially when they're so out of touch.

I'm allergic to government over-reach.

https://reason.com/2023/07/12/massachusetts-considers-ban-on-sale-of-phone-location-data/ Massachusetts might ban the sale of phone location data.

Also, I would explicitly exclude "pseudo-photographs" or similar such things from any scope to protect human rights.

A blunt instrument is inappropriate here.

Chasing any and all such things is a waste of resources, unlikely to reduce abuse, and most likely counter-productive.

Also, Patrick's attempt to use "more accurate language" has only winded up making his language even more confusing.

I just use the term "child porn", the term widely used, without mincing words. Anti-authoritarian activism is not the place to experiment with strange and novel language.