Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/03/1179990709/tennessee-drag-show-law-ruling Tennessee's drag show ban ruled unconstitutional.

https://www.badinternetbills.com/ United States. You should oppose all these bad unconstitutional bills.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240126224544if_/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1831

I have concerns with this (proposed) bill (which messes with the "child porn" definition), which again, seems to be a bad "deepfake" bill idea. This time in the name of "saving the children" (which is always a red flag).

First off, this appears to be one of those narrow-minded tunnel-vision bills where someone thinks of *one particular thing*, but doesn't think of all the bad ways in which it could be applied. For instance, it uses a "reasonable person would regard it to be" test. But, then, an over-zealous prosecutor might squint at something which is quite unlikely to be that (i.e. a more realistic art style), and argue that it is. The only limiting term is "computer-generated", but then, that doesn't even have to imply the use of "AI" at all, does it?

It is also Unconstitutional, and could probably be dealt with in better ways. For instance, in the more narrow form of "sexual harassment" (which is probably what someone is thinking of here). That wouldn't involve inconvenient court battles, or human rights violations. I think that for the most part, people aren't really lining up to be evil for the sake of being evil, and I don't think "War on Drugs" type ideas are proportionate or effective.

So, I think this is a bad bill, and legislators should not advance it.

https://edri.org/our-work/portugal-new-data-retention-law-fails-at-the-constitutional-court-parliament-will-try-for-a-third-time/

"The Portuguese Constitutional Court has declared a new data retention law proposal to be unconstitutional. The law proposed, among other things, general and indiscriminate retention of people’s telecommunications data – like traffic and location data – for up to six months for the purpose of investigating serious crime.

The proposal had been approved in the Parliament and it was supposed to replace the previous data retention law invalidated by the same court in 2022. The law was declared invalid following a complaint presented to the Justice Ombudsman by EDRi Member D3 – Defesa dos Direitos Digitais, in 2017.

In response to the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Parliament has swiftly approved another dubious data retention regime in the beginning of 2024, which might face the same fate of being declared unconstitutional…for the third time."

"On January 5 2024 a new law proposal was approved in the plenary.

However, as argued by D3, the new data retention regime is not any less problematic. The new law does not dictates a data retention scheme directly, but allows it through an authorisation from a special section of the Supreme Court. It will be up to the Supreme Court to define the terms of each data retention authorisation, with the law solely requiring them to be proportional and for the purpose of investigating serious crime. The law does not set duration limits, specific legal grounds for data retention to be authorised, or the criteria for it to be considered proportional."

#privacy #dataretention

Blue Archive Miyu Observation Of A Timid Person 1/7 Scale Figure - Preorder Available!
🛑https://meccha-japan.com/en/figures/128273-figure-miyu-observation-of-a-timid-person-blue-archive.html
#BlueArchive #Miyu

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/eff-and-more-100-ngos-set-non-negotiable-redlines-ahead-un-cybercrime-treaty

I see EFF (and friends) wrote about this nasty piece of work again (though, it's not entirely clear to me that these recommendations are sufficient[1]).

Anyway, here's my thoughts:

It has so many problems, it's honestly hard for me to know where to even begin. One part encourages the rapid takedown of content [2 Article 53.3.h], and that is not necessarily a good thing, as it could drive companies to over-censor (and we have seen them do this).

We've also seen attempts to chase after pet issues (and even hypotheticals)[3], rather than actual serious crimes, and these would overwhelmingly affect legitimate activities.

Article 53 is, (probably) deliberately, open-ended, and seems to encourage an endless parade of possible totalitarianism.

It still doesn't appear to require that a crime is a crime in both countries (Article 22.2.b) in all cases?

Article 20 encourages longer statutes of limitations without any particular regard to the severity of the crime. It would also appear to create justifications for even greater surveillance than that even asked for here, by encouraging states to chase minor crimes from a long time ago.

The term "serious crime" is problematic in that a state can designate what might otherwise be an undeserving crime to have a certain "sentence", then to in practice, give someone a much lighter sentence as a consequence of judicial discretion, or as some other artefact of their judicial process. Alternatively, they might give someone a straight-up disproportionate punishment, particularly if they have little regard for human rights. They can then use this as "evidence" that they are pursuing a "serious crime" which might otherwise be quite minor. It is also not unusual for "crimes" like "insulting the king" to already carry pretty hefty sentences in a few countries, does that suddenly mean that is a "serious crime"?

Article 6 stipulates that a state *can* require intent for "unlawful access", however, it does *require* it, nor does it *recommend* it (they don't appear to have trouble making "recommendations" elsewhere in this document). That means this vehicle could still be misused in that manner. This is a common issue you might find elsewhere in this document.

As mentioned before, and repeated here below, "human rights are optional clauses" do not fundamentally make a blatant human rights violation any less of one, simply because a state which cares about human rights might be able to make use of it to avoid violating someone's human rights. It also wouldn't be particularly difficult to say "you cannot use this treaty as a vehicle for this"... They're not even trying.

Here's another example (which I touched on before):

Article 13 (the very same name as that revolting E.U. copyright legislation, though that was later renamed to Article 17, very different in nature though). It could be described as a "won't anyone please think of the children?"[4] section. Immediately, if we look at the language, it immediately looks extremely suspicious, and it is clear to anyone with a functional brain that they're not talking about protecting children, but seem intent on protecting someone from being offended.

"include written or audio content"

So, what comes to mind when you see words like this? Perhaps, a novel Time listed as one of it's best hundred novels? (this one keeps coming up, so I gotta mention it)[5][6] Maybe, something silly like a chatbot?[7] Stories about fictional cartoon characters?[7] Perhaps, a horror novel?

Also, even a "real people" definition would be fundamentally flawed. What if someone writes a story about what happened to themselves? If they talk about it, it would fall under the audio term. Is this a joke? It might also sweep up fantasies, including private fantasies, including ones communicated for the purposes of telehealth (so, there goes medical confidentiality). It cannot be stressed enough how bad of a definition that would be, and for no real legitimate purpose, it would seem[7].

If someone has committed a real crime, someone can simply pursue those. That said, it's really bad to punish innocent people in some War on Drugs type style[7][8][9]. It is incomprehensible how this sort of language even came to be, and I have many questions about the process which brought about this text, which brings complete and utter disgrace upon the entire United Nations, and it's organs. In less polite words, what the f-ck?

Also, while there is a clause saying that a State *could* only include cases "depicting", "describing", or "representing" (not is this wordplay game redundant, it is also iffy, suspicious, experimental, and likely abusable) "real children" for "imagery, etc", or to exclude written text / audio (it also appears to say nothing of deliberate intent, which could be problematic), it doesn't actually mandate that for use in this treaty, which is really, the entire point of having a safeguard to protect human rights. It also has other rather vague and highly abusable language, such as "describes", and this is an especially bad document to be experimenting with novel language in.

Repeating what a free speech group said (I think it was the EFF), there already appear to be other venues for dealing with these sorts of crimes, and messing around here only creates room for new possible human rights violations. Of course, this doesn't mean that I support vague / problematic definitions elsewhere either[10]. Still, it would seem that including this section in here could only create problems, all things considered.

1 https://www.eff.org/files/2024/01/22/joint.advocacy.statement-cybercrime.convention-jan.23.2024.pdf
2 https://www.unodc.org/documents/Cybercrime/AdHocCommittee/Concluding_session/Documents/A_AC.291_22_Rev.1_E.pdf
3 https://qoto.org/@olives/111497528228022091
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%27s_List_of_the_100_Best_Novels
6 https://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/slide/lolita-1955-by-vladimir-nabokov/
7 https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885
8 https://qoto.org/@olives/111448111216663879
9 https://qoto.org/@olives/111516011246609826
10 https://qoto.org/@olives/111763532531169050

https://reclaimthenet.org/the-un-is-threatening-privacy-under-pretense-of-new-cybercrime-treaty

"The US digital rights group EFF is describing the latest UN Cybercrime Treaty draft as “a significant step backward” and a case of “perilously broadening its scope beyond the cybercrimes specifically defined in the convention, encompassing a long list of non-cybercrimes.”"

"A major concern is what EFF calls possible overreach as national and international investigations are carried out. And instead of improving on these concerns, the new draft is said to have held on to past controversial rules, only to add even more."

"“allowing states to compel engineers or employees to undermine security measures, posing a threat to encryption.”"

"“(The latest draft) is primed to facilitate abuses on a global scale, through extensive cross border powers to investigate virtually any imaginable ‘crime’ – like peaceful dissent or expression of sexual orientation – while undermining the treaty’s purpose of addressing genuine cybercrime,” commented Human Rights Watch Associate Director Deborah Brown, adding:

“Governments should not rush to conclude this treaty without ensuring that it elevates, rather than sacrifices, our fundamental rights.”"

#privacy