Olives @olives@qoto.org

As Meredith has been a good privacy warrior before the government lately, I've avoided being that critical of Signal, but as some have pointed out, it does have it's flaws.

https://reclaimthenet.org/signal-introduces-message-editing What do you think of this? (I still dislike the phone number requirement and other problems with Signal).

"impact assessments" don't protect people's right to free expression. Not by a long shot. Can we stop pretending they might?

https://www.xbiz.com/news/277238/ohio-republicans-innocence-act-could-criminalize-online-nudes

Noting that this bill could easily be worse than I suggest here, I haven't looked at the *specific language* of it.

"A Republican lawmaker in Ohio introduced this week an age verification bill called the “Innocence Act,” which observers have pointed out that, as submitted, could criminalize the posting of any nude image online without verifying age as a felony."

This means verifying the age of the viewer. Sounds unconstitutional to me. Very unconstitutional. It's a pretty clear cut nonsense harassment bill.

"Demetriou wrote he believes all online pornography “is a threat to Ohio children,” claiming that unspecified studies “have shown that pornography is a pathway to mental health issues for children and can be a precursor to sexual aggression."

"unspecified" In other words, this Republican has no actual evidence, and we should assume by default that he is talking nonsense (very safe assumption).

Also, evidence seems to suggest that religious conservatism is far more likely to be a "pathway to mental health issues". Perhaps, we should protect minors from these kinds of environments? Or perhaps, we should admit this idea is a load of garbage?

Also, even among those who think there "might" be an "association", it is suggested that it is far more likely that it is that someone turns to porn, because they have some problem, not because the porn has created that very problem.

"precursor" to "sexual aggression".

Also, it's interesting how this particular language doesn't actually suggest that it causes it. It only suggests that it might come before. This is something you could use to debunk this idea of porn being bad but it would never be able to establish that it *is*.

This is something which something like half of the population does. If it led to sexual aggression, we would see a lot more sexual crimes. We don't. Even if you suppose that someone has some problem, it's extremely unlikely that *this* is the problem. It's a very lazy scapegoat for social issues.

In any case, this particular one has been thoroughly debunked.

"In another sentence, Demetriou’s official statement explains that “if a minor attempts to access sexually explicit material by falsifying their identity would be charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor.”"

This creep wants to lock up minors for displaying a normal adolescent curiosity in sex.

"Other stipulations of Demetriou’s Innocence Act address the posting of sexually-themed deepfakes, which the legislator is proposing to be charged as a third-degree felony."

Just because the bill might have one maybe okay provision (if it simply means like non-consensual deepfakes of someone, language kind of matters) doesn't mean this is a "good" bill (it's still awful, awful).

https://reclaimthenet.org/ylva-johansson-dismisses-criticial-surveillance-chat Another take on Ylva's antics.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/mastercard-should-stop-selling-our-data

"That's why EFF has joined a campaign, led by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), to call on Mastercard to limit its data collection and stop selling cardholder information."

"Why make this ask of Mastercard? As U.S. PIRG explains in its report accompanying the campaign, the company’s position as a global payments technology company affords it "access to enormous amounts of information derived from the financial lives of millions, and its monetization strategies tell a broader story of the data economy that’s gone too far.""

"Knowing where you shop, just by itself, can reveal a lot about who you are. Mastercard takes this a step further, as U.S. PIRG reported, by analyzing the amount and frequency of transactions, plus the location, date, and time to create categories of cardholders and make inferences about what type of shopper you may be. In some cases, this means predicting who’s a “big spender” or which cardholders Mastercard thinks will be “high-value”—predictions used to target certain people and encourage them to spend more money."

https://reason.com/2023/10/10/the-right-to-give/

"In July, Phillip Picone, a Houston activist, stood before a jury of his peers, charged with the heinous crime of feeding the needy."

"Picone is one of several activists affiliated with Food Not Bombs (FNB), a volunteer group with chapters worldwide. Houston police have repeatedly cited FNB activists for distributing free food outside the city's downtown public library, based on a 2012 city ordinance restricting charitable food services. By the time Picone appeared in Houston Municipal Court, FNB members had received 45 tickets at $254 each, for a total of $11,430 in fines."

https://reclaimthenet.org/iran-rolls-out-invasive-facial-recognition-tech-in-colleges

"The tightening grip of surveillance and political suppression in Iranian universities has intensified, as the Islamic Republic seeks to muzzle the academic community. With facial biometric verification becoming a staple for accessing even the most basic of services, the cloak of unease drapes heavily upon the student body.

Student groups from across the nation have raised concerns about these invasive measures. A striking video from the United Students Telegram, released October 1, captures school officials from Shiraz University mandating students to provide facial scans to access food from self-service amenities."

https://reason.com/2023/10/09/federal-prison-censors-reason-issue-about-how-federal-prison-employed-serial-rapists/

"A federal prison blocked an incarcerated Reason subscriber from receiving one of our recent issues. It's the one whose cover story showed how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) allowed a cadre of guards to sexually assault female inmates with impunity—and allowed them to escape legal consequences after they confessed."

"The rejection notice from FMC Devens says the issue "is being rejected due to the nature of its content. The magainze [sic] contains an article about Bureau of Prisons staff at FCC Coleman including the names of Correctional Officers and victims. Such material jeopardizes the good order and security of the institution.""

"This is far from the first time Reason has had a run-in with prison censors. Issues of Reason have been impounded by Florida and Arizona prison officials. The latter found a on the deplorable conditions inside the Washington, D.C., jail "detrimental to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of the institution.""

What's next? CSI? Murder mystery novels?

It's a nonsense argument.

Also, this is exactly the sort of argument someone might use to clobber transparency, which would lead to misdeeds, unethical practices, and rights violations not being covered.

Society shouldn't be architected to the convenience of a cop above all else.

We really shouldn't let these people get away with this.

It is a testament to the efficacy of this meme that the think of the children people keep complaining it, even though it is hardly even used.

"People really should stop letting them get away with this"

https://reclaimthenet.org/hundreds-of-canadians-have-been-debanked-in-the-last-five-years-report-shows The most concerning part of this is that it seems someone can be debanked in Canada with practically no due process.

I'm seeing a curious "child torture stories" framing for something from one bad faith actor. As you might expect, it uses exploitative language, for something which is likely there for the purposes of "shock value" or "horror".

Of course, when you tend to invoke something similar to pseudo-scientific deviancy* theories, you might theorize how literally anything might be related to "evil" (out of paranoia, or out of a more political intent), rather than a far more mundane explanation.

It is also quintessential "there might be something on the Internet which offends me" (especially, since it is very likely rare, and the Internet is *vast*). Perhaps, someone should examine why they really go out of their way to complain about such things.

I won't say this one is that Karen but there is also not much there.

* https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885

Since it's probably a troll, let's add a bit more flair to this post.

How dare you be outraged that the government wants to come take your rights away! You should be happy! It is for the children!

How dare you show any emotion towards this!

Here's a bunch of words to shove in your mouth which you never said!

I am sure it has something to do with Big Tech! Yes! Yes! How could anyone possibly want rights!

I am sure your behavior is related to x, y, and z conspiracies whirling through my head.

I am Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero One. I. demand. to. be. taken. seriously.

I'm now seeing a think of the children troll? sock? account on another site trying to conflate critique of a disingenuous use of "think of the children" for human rights violating purposes without rational thought with "critique of child welfare".

It's fascinating that a "think of the children" guy is now concerned that E2EE is not all that effective at thwarting adversaries (therefore, we should get rid of it), because someone could derive something from the metadata.

That *is* a problem, yes, although it is fascinating to see someone use it to argue for *worse* security.

Or we could take this as evidence that future systems need to be more metadata resistant, as some researchers, such as Sarah at Open Privacy are looking into (that is not the only system which comes to mind).