Olives @olives@qoto.org

To Germany, treating criminals like guinea pigs for research is not okay, and there needs to be a serious human rights reckoning there.

I think it's partly to convey emotion.

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/twitter-defeats-fosta-case-over-csam-doe-v-twitter.htm That is good. It would otherwise set a very dangerous precedent, if someone could point to "this case" or "that case" where something wasn't moderated perfectly (i.e. quickly enough, in this case), and would be a threat to people's rights (as it would lead to great collateral damage).

Let's just hope it won't start generating nonsense.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231216113909/https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/workshop-3-online-child-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse-13-december-2023 They're probably promoting chat control at that workshop, given the context and usual chat control advocates.

Worth mentioning that there was a snap election in 2019 in the U.K. and a far more populist government was elected. While the precise timing might or might not jive with that particular incident in 2019, it might jive with the other shrill behavior.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/suspects-can-refuse-to-provide-phone-passcodes-to-police-court-rules/
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/14/is-compelled-decryption-heading-to-the-supreme-court/

"Criminal suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, according to a unanimous ruling issued today by Utah's state Supreme Court."

#privacy

Since someone brought them up, and seem curious as to why they talk a lot of nonsense, it's worth mentioning the IWF has a lot of cops in it. Hell, the comms director who likes to write a lot of shrill nonsense used to work for the police.

Reminder that the police is currently run by a very conservative British party probably making them even worse than they usually are. Also, I don't think the IWF actually operates legally, they have an "agreement" with the police that they won't prosecute them, so long as they operate within "certain parameters". There is plenty of incentive here then to "get on their good side".

The rest of it can be chalked up to virtue signalling, fund raising (it has a lot in similar to a protection racket), and well, an org like this is bound to involve a certain number of crazy people who are fairly obsessive.

Also, analysing their rhetoric, they became more shrill around 2019 (the year when they lied about the number of child porn images, then quietly backed down on it by blaming most of it on false reports from the public, is anyone stupid enough to buy this excuse? more recently, they appear to have conflated *spam links to sites which may contain images* with *images*), when previously they used less heated language.

They're very activist and it would be extremely foolhardy to take anything they say at face value.

Also, you have to think, would we take extreme rights violating measures to deal with, say, murders across a country?

From what I remember, the reason they keep focusing on the number of images is because the number of victims of abuse is actually really small in comparison.

https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/-/cybercrime-and-freedom-of-expression-discussion-paper

"In a number of countries, such legislation on cybercrime includes provisions on criminalising the “dissemination of false information”, “offensive messages”, “causing annoyance”, “spreading of rumours” and other conduct. In some instances, such provisions appear to be vague and overly broad, and raise concerns of whether such restrictions to the freedom of expression are consistent with human rights and rule of law requirements."

That does sound very problematic, doesn't it.

Another one which I wouldn't want to see being censored, and seems to be a worry mentioned a fair bit, would be "porn" of "fictional / non-existent minors".

While I think this is probably fairly obvious at this point, a significant contributor to child abuse appears to be poverty. That is brought up a fair bit.

https://reason.com/2023/12/15/this-nra-supreme-court-case-has-big-implications-for-porn/

""We don't support the NRA's mission or its viewpoints on gun rights, and we don't agree with their goals, strategies, or tactics," the ACLU posted on X (formerly Twitter) on December 9. "But we both know that government officials can't punish organizations because they disapprove of their views.""

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/15/new-jersey-is-the-latest-to-push-a-harmful-moral-panic-think-of-the-kids-social-media-bill/ Another "think of the kids" social media bill. Not a fan of "age verification". And even if it were "harmful" to a few, censorship / this would still not be proportionate.