Olives @olives@qoto.org

"The police are not capable of investigating crimes unless someone sends them a video of themselves carrying it out."

Keep in mind that in the 21st century, the police has never had more technology and capabilities for investigating crimes.
#chatcontrol

"This is a clear violation of human rights / privacy."

"But, what about Microsoft's algorithm. It has been used for a decade by a few tech companies, that means it must be good."

Ugh... #chatcontrol

It's somewhat annoying how over the past decade, one particular algorithm from one particular U.S. company has been used to sell the idea that surveillance is somehow some magical solution to society's problems. #chatcontrol

As bad actors in this country are consistently producing bullshit, I am specifically addressing it.

It's remarkable how the same bullshit is revived every month where supposedly the "end of the world" over "AI" is here and to "think of the children" over a tiny number of cases at best.

And each time, someone "acts" as if making a "novel" claim. Whether it's promising that "AI" can do anything, or grifting off "AI" hysteria, "AI" remains a magnet for bullshit. #ukpol

I'm working on the draft post on and off, and I haven't made enough changes to it to justify making a whole new post on here.

For an idea of what might be added to a new post though, I make note of the fact that censorship around sex can also lead to educational content being censored.

https://libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/met-police-computers-access-dangerous-facial-recognition-search-engine/
"Scotland Yard has banned officers from using a controversial facial recognition search engine described as “invasive and dangerous” by MPs after it was accessed thousands of times from Metropolitan Police computers"

"Pimeyes – a website that allows users to upload photos and identify where images of an individual appear elsewhere on the internet – was visited from Met Police computers 2,337 times in just one three month period, according to a freedom of information request submitted by Liberty Investigates. Unlike Met-approved facial recognition tools, Pimeyes could be accessed by any officer or staff member without official records of searches or safeguards around whose photos are being searched."
#privacy #ukpol #FaceRecognition

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/help-us-hold-them-to-their-promises/ I was wondering what Liberty had to say about the new British government and there you go.

In general, I'd like to avoid things like "someone being locked up in the mental hospital", if possible, and to expand avenues for getting them out of there.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/17/what-bills-are-included-in-the-kings-speech-and-what-will-they-do
"Mental health bill: A broad bill to modernise mental health provisions, including in areas such as how people can be detained and treated under the Mental Health Act."
I often dislike the word "modernise" because there is usually no objective standard to it.

If someone decides that violating someone's human rights is the "modern way" of doing things, then they might market that as "modern".

"Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (extension) bill: This would aim to increase the number of female bishops in the Lords."
I wonder why you'd want bishops in the Lords. Frankly, I think that the Church should be separate from the State.

"Digital information and Smart data bill: In a similar vein, this would change data-sharing standards and introduce a proper system for digital verification services."

"digital verification services"

Hmm...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/17/heath-leaders-hail-labours-plans-to-phase-out-smoking-mental-health-laws I'm okay with dissuading people but not personally a fan of telling people what to do (particularly banning x or y). I'm aware the previous government also had their idea.

So, what to call this other than a propaganda ministry?

We *know* higher ups at the BBC put their fingers on the scale. For instance, they might complain that reporting is not far right enough for their liking.

Reporters have admitted as much off-the-record. There has been discourse about that before.

While I don't agree with everything the greens say, that is quite the snub for a party which got a lot of votes.

Curiously, German parties other than the AfD weren't posting as much onto TikTok, or so a study suggested.

While it might not feature everything they might want (or in precisely the way they want), from what I've seen, it has a strong slant that way.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24436507.green-party-complain-bbc-failure-broadcast-election-wins/
A complaint has been filed against the propaganda division of the British Government for not broadcasting the Green Party's wins. #ukpol

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/courts-should-have-jurisdiction-over-foreign-companies-collecting-data-local While the EFF might not like it here, I think limiting the jurisdiction of a state on the Internet could be positive in a number of ways.

One alternate option might be to get the local state to pass a privacy law, if that's what they're worried about.

Trump taking some far right anti porn (and culture war) guy on as his running mate does not inspire confidence in him.

I think that probably practically speaking, so long as someone isn't going out of their way to market themselves to those age groups, then it probably doesn't matter.

Nonetheless, Elizabeth makes some interesting points.