Olives @olives@qoto.org

I don't have the time or resources to debunk bad faith takes one by one, so I will allow my words here to speak for themselves.

A British cop asserting something doesn't magically change this calculus.

I wouldn't be surprised, if they just relied on another jurisdiction to use it for them, and just passed on the "results".

https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/WePROTECT-Advisory-Board-Terms-of-Reference.pdf
"by advising the steering committee of the new Global Fund to End Violence Against Children and helping to secure funding for the Fund’s work"
This refers to one of the roles of the Board.

Interesting... It never occurred to me they might be getting funded by these people.

Though, if you dig down, even these "think of the children" people usually have strong ties to government.

I'm not going into that now though. #chatcontrol

Ylva kind of tells on herself(1) when she says she's been primarily talking to the "think of the children" people and "Big Tech" (conflating Big Tech with anyone worth talking to).

Then, she effectively kicked civil society to the curb (who report great difficulty in trying to contact her(2)).

In an unsurprising twist, it turns out she was involved in "WeProtect". A little echo chamber (launched by the British Government(3)), it has "think of the children" interests, Google / Facebook appear to be involved (or were)(4), and government interests.

As has always been the issue, she ignores the fundamental rights of everyone, whether that is the freedom of expression, privacy, or due process, and instead echoes the rhetoric of a particular group of people (who either ignore fundamental rights concerns outright, minimize them, a few even rationalizing some rights violations as a "good thing").

We also get clearly nonsense claims from them like one in four children have been raped / molested which feels like something there just to muddy the waters. In fact, any misleading claim can be advanced, if it is dramatic enough to stir up an emotional reaction. No need to think of whether it is even plausible (or debunked, as is often the case). Toss it like a grenade and run.

1 https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-gate-eu-home-affairs-commissioner-johansson-fails-to-credibly-dispel-lobbying-revelations/

2 https://edri.org/our-work/commissioner-johansson-cannot-be-trusted-with-the-eus-proposed-csa-regulation/

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Shields%2C_Baroness_Shields

4 https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/WePROTECT-Advisory-Board-Terms-of-Reference.pdf

#chatcontrol

Elon nerfing the previews for links to articles might be due to Article 11 (the link tax the E.U. came up with).

Maybe, the feature is a gimmick, some have called it that, however, I don't see the big deal over these particular stickers.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/10/facebooks-new-ai-stickers-can-generate-mickey-mouse-holding-a-machine-gun/ I don't really see the big deal here. It's just people generating silly parodies of cartoon characters, and maybe, a couple of politicians.

If you want an idea of how accurate algorithms are at "saving the children".

I don't necessarily dislike the idea of "keep up" legal standards for speech on large social networks. I think executing it would be tricky though.

I have a few worries here:

1) There is a fair bit of supreme court precedent against compelled speech. Prohibitions on compelled speech are very important for protecting someone's right to free expression. Undermining that would be troublesome.

2) Some proposals (and the Texas law) are not content neutral. They discriminate against some forms of content. Off the top of my head, there is a vague clause which could be used by bad faith actors to target sexual expression. This is not in line with the First Amendment. That is worrying.

3) While this is probably less of a problem with a U.S. based proposal, internationally, you might have one country tell a company to take something down, and another tell them to keep it up.

4) State power.

https://unicornriot.ninja/2023/ugandas-death-sentence-on-its-lgbti-communities/

"On August 18, 2023, a 20-year-old Ugandan man was charged with “aggravated homosexuality” for the first time under the country’s newly introduced anti-homosexuality act. That man is accused of having “performed unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 41-year-old, and despite the charge sheet not clearly specifying why the act was considered “aggravated,” the charge has been maintained by prosecutors. This distinction means that under the new legislation, the offense can be punishable with a death sentence."

"Repeat offenses, the transmission of terminal illness, or same-sex intercourse with a minor, elderly person, or disabled person all amount to the definition of “aggravated” under the new law."

"terminal" likely means "HIV" here (Is it necessarily terminal with modern treatment? Well, I doubt they'd care).

"with a minor"
Presumably, this would include minors with other minors, or something that is close in age, although it still amounts to discrimination either way.

"A group of civil society groups in Uganda known as the Strategic Response Team (SRT) has reported hundreds of incidents that violate human rights law since the introduction of the bill. Videos have been spread across social media of increased hostility and violence towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people across Uganda. The SRT claims to have recorded over 300 human rights violations since the bill was signed into law. The group has also submitted a list of 50 verified cases to a judge to try and create an injunction against the law."

"The fears around association with the LGBTI+ communities in Uganda created by the new act potentially mean fewer and fewer HIV infected people will seek treatment so as not to be suspected by authorities or potential informants."

"the potential of a state execution"

State murder.

https://reason.com/2023/10/04/weed-is-legal-in-illinois-police-searched-his-car-anyway/

"At the officer's request, Jackson handed over two grams of unburnt cannabis he kept in a baggie in his glove box. Possessing up to 30 grams is permissible under Illinois law."

"Judge James E. Shadid of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois came down in favor of police, ruling that Jackson had run afoul of the state requirement to keep marijuana in an odor-proof container."

"Twenty-three out of 50 states, along with Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational marijuana. "The simple smell of something that has a host of perfectly legal uses in a state should not be sufficient grounds for police to prolong a traffic stop," Paul Sherman, a senior attorney at I.J., tells Reason."

"At the core of Jackson's appeal, and I.J.'s brief, is the Fourth Amendment's promise that people be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In that vein, Nelson maintains that unless the judiciary clearly defines probable cause under such circumstances, police may be incentivized to weaponize their power in perverse ways."

""Vigorous judicial enforcement of probable cause is particularly important in the context of automobile searches, which are typically conducted without a warrant issued by a neutral judge," said Nelson in a statement. "Because of abusive practices like civil forfeiture—which allows police departments to seize and keep cash and other property merely suspected of being involved in a crime—those officers often have strong financial incentives to search, regardless of whether probable cause really exists. If judges don't closely review those decisions, drivers are left with no protection from abusive searches.""

https://reason.com/2023/10/04/rishi-sunak-to-ban-cigarettes-for-brits/

"People in England born on or after January 1, 2009, will be banned from ever buying cigarettes under plans announced Wednesday by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak."

"But cigarettes aren't alone in Sunak's war on nicotine—disposable e-cigarettes, which have been blamed for an uptick in youth vaping, could also be banned.

The number of British youth who have tried vaping rose from 7.7 percent in 2022 to 11.3 percent in 2023. However, the same survey data shows no significant change in the proportion of youth vaping regularly. Laws banning vape sales to children are already on the books, and tobacco harm reduction advocates argue enforcing the law would be a better bet than playing prohibition whack-a-mole."

"Bhutan became the first country to ban tobacco in 2004 and suffered a boom in smuggling. The prohibition was repealed in 2020 and was recognized as a failure. South Africa banned tobacco during COVID-19 with similar results, entrenching the illicit trade."

This sounds like a War on Drugs. That thing which doesn't work.

https://nichegamer.com/grisaia-chronos-rebellion-censored-on-steam/ Valve really needs to stop listening to that extreme Mormon group from Utah.

https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-plans-to-use-passport-photo-database-for-criminal-facial-recognition-checks

"The British government has rolled out an unprecedented edict, compelling police to cross-reference with facial recognition technology closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of all thefts with governmental photographic databases such as that used for passports."

"This approach—described by Police Minister Chris Philp as “game-changing”— intends to systematically resolve theft cases by deploying advanced facial recognition technology. Philp’s order, however, is raising strenuous objections from privacy advocates, triggering a larger dialogue about our emerging surveillance culture."

"The mandate underlines the application of cutting-edge facial recognition tools to match and identify offenders’ faces from extremely obscure or partial images in the footage of thefts, burglaries, and shoplifting. The tentacles of this surveillance practice extend to doorstep thefts, burglaries, and even instances where video doorbell systems or private CCTV security systems have captured the alleged culprits."

"Moreover, making surveillance a societal norm might incite criminals to don masks, ironically exacerbating the situation by instigating the enforced usage of identity-obscuring methods and meaning that it’s only law-abiding citizens that end up getting their face scanned."

"Data Security and Accuracy Concerns: The accuracy of facial recognition technology is not infallible. Misidentifications can occur, leading to potential legal and personal repercussions for individuals wrongly identified. Additionally, the storage and security of the biometric data is a concern as it could be susceptible to unauthorized access or cyberattacks."

"Chilling Effects on Free Speech and Assembly: Knowing that they might be identified and tracked, individuals might become reluctant to engage in legal protests or other forms of free expression for fear of retribution or surveillance."

https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-kosa-will-censor-the-internet-but-won-t-help-kids A form you can use to oppose KOSA.

If anything, I think it doesn't go far enough to protect fundamental rights.