Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/29/australian-clinical-labs-hack-quantum-cyber-attack-oaic By the way, this is the country which a couple of Ylva's "experts" (cops) were from. #chatcontrol

We thought Superman was invincible but then he bought a smartphone and was overcome by the foul mouth of Trollman.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885
While I make a drug war reference here, there also seems to be a crossover between people who support mass surveillance... And people who are fond of the War on Drugs...

Funny how there is someone who just sits there reading every bit of criticism against chat control (and it just goes on and on forever).

For context, it's a *country specific* number in a country with like 70 million people (which makes it even worse).

Also, regardless of what someone thinks of that practice of minors sexting with each other, having all these personal images being collected in mass and stored in databases to be viewed by unknown persons (and passed around among various cop agencies) is quite disturbing (and far less secure than if it were not).

The police are also not really the appropriate party to be dealing with such matters. #chatcontrol

"with someone they knew offline said it was with a boyfriend or girlfriend"

"it's also not clear that data actually supports that"

For instance, you could imagine the case of a scanning company butting into such relationships more intrusively.

Also, it could well be higher than that, as someone could specifically use an app that is safer for something like that (i.e. more secure). #chatcontrol

By the way, Thorn put out a statement saying this:

"Norms in relationships are changing."

"More than two in three minors (69%) who have shared their own "Self Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material" with someone they knew offline said it was with a boyfriend or girlfriend, up from just over half (54%) in 2021."

First off, Thorn is hardly what I'd call a reliable source (it's also not clear that data actually supports that).

Secondly, even here, they're incapable of not inserting emotionally manipulative nonsense terms. Is it appropriate or acceptable? Well, there is a question to be had about that. Maybe. But, pretending it is the same as "abuse" is absurd.

They know exactly what they're doing. They do it deliberately.

#chatcontrol

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/08/meta-finally-launches-default-end-to-end-encryption-in-messenger/ Commentary on FB Messenger adopting end-to-end encryption by default.

"there are millions of offenders in a few forums"

Actually, this "evil dark web" statistic is false. That is the number of accounts. It is established in news articles that people who use these sites create an account every time they access it.

One article estimated the actual number of people to be around ten thousand, although it's unclear whether that is wholly accurate.

I'd also be wary of determining the behavior of every user (i.e. to try to argue greater immorality) based on users who "speak". Remember, the 1% rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule

That said, it's irrelevant what some criminals do, when so many people also use these tools for legitimate purposes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55326451 Would this be considered "female impersonation" under these authoritarian laws?

I will mention that of the child predators we have seen (including moderated), but not here, they looked like any other user. Very mundane and ordinary, even.

They didn't post child porn. They didn't even post porn, for that matter. They didn't sit there talking about kids or whatever, didn't mention them at all.

I wonder how many times I am going to see sentences like this (with the ongoing end-to-end encryption discourse):

Most abuse happens in the home.

Most abuse is not on the Internet.

The other possible places to pull that number out of thin air aren't any better.

To be clear, exaggerated numbers don't make this anti privacy argument any more compelling.

I hope this insinuation of there being a million child predators is not based on the probably sampling biased survey with the "Would you have sex with a minor, if it wasn't some awful harmful thing and no one would care?" question.

These anti end-to-end encryption people... Always a tendency towards conflation, exaggeration, and misleading claims.

I removed a post (immediately prior to this one) as if even that number came from a questionable source prone to exaggeration. I don't want to circulate anything which might be misleading.

Is Facebook rolling out default end-to-end encryption here the beginning of the end for "technosolutionism"? The idea that somehow we can "solve" all social problems via technology.

Technosolutionism was always a really terrible ideology, although not a surprising one, given the marketability of it by tech firms (and one which tends to trend towards totalitarianism, human rights violations, and dubious interventions). #chatcontrol

Privacy activists are also taking responsibility for it.

Well, whoever is responsible for it, maybe everyone, it's a nice decision to make.

"Without any mass surveillance, Meta could make Facebook and Instagram secure by design for children if Zuckerberg was willing to compromise on profits. Why, for example, are young people not asked, regardless of their age, if they want their photos and profiles to be publicly visible to strangers?”"

If it's just that, then I don't think I mind.

The term "safe by design" has been tainted for me though, by someone who is very censorious.

Patrick Breyer MEP takes responsibility for forcing Facebook to adopt end-to-end encryption by default in Messenger, in part, due to his lawsuit. Lol.