TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Data shows that the EU's CSAM scanning will not have the intended effect

499 点作者 starsep将近 3 年前

25 条评论

2pEXgD0fZ5cF将近 3 年前
I&#x27;m going to slightly modify and repeat comment of mine I wrote here on another post for the same topic:<p>According to the DKSB (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund) [1], encryption barely plays a role when it comes to the distribution of CSAM [2]. In short: DKSB is not in favour of this. You know, the people that probably know what they are talking about when it comes to the protection of children, unlike the politicians who are trying to force this through.<p>The politicians which only really talked to salesmen of surveillance software [3] about this and never really consulted any independent people with expertise in tech, privacy or the protection of children [4].<p>Because this was never, at any moment, about protecting children.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dksb.de&#x2F;en&#x2F;home&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dksb.de&#x2F;en&#x2F;home&#x2F;</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eu-info.de&#x2F;dpa-europaticker&#x2F;316232.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eu-info.de&#x2F;dpa-europaticker&#x2F;316232.html</a><p>[3]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;netzpolitik.org&#x2F;2022&#x2F;dude-wheres-my-privacy-how-a-hollywood-star-lobbies-the-eu-for-more-surveillance&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;netzpolitik.org&#x2F;2022&#x2F;dude-wheres-my-privacy-how-a-ho...</a><p>[4]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;edri.org&#x2F;our-work&#x2F;private-and-secure-communications-put-at-risk-by-european-commissions-latest-proposal&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;edri.org&#x2F;our-work&#x2F;private-and-secure-communications-...</a>
评论 #31489820 未加载
评论 #31489934 未加载
评论 #31489507 未加载
评论 #31489972 未加载
评论 #31492689 未加载
GaelFG将近 3 年前
Living in France, the lie is also obvious for a very sad reason : we aldready don&#x27;t do anything significant in case of a majority of &#x27;obvious&#x27; child abuses (sex related or not, that&#x27;s not even the point).<p>I know a fair amount of social worker whom sadly report that in a lot of child education place they know about A LOT of abuse, and a non negligible (and mental burden inducing) part of the work is to do triage, because they know they get (the number are made up) 50 report per week, but they only can &#x27;investigate&#x27; about 20, and even if the 20 are really worrying, they can only launch action for 3 to 5, any more would overflow the dedicated services.<p>And that&#x27;s not they are lazy, investigating is really complicated (and often not even worth, the main goal is to help the victim, no chasing culprits) and acting worse. You are pretty sure some girl in bad social context is being abused ? with whom do you send her living ? the maybe abusing father ? The probably violent alcoolic uncle or the nice but drug dealing older brother (who maybe is not ready to support her education even with a little financial help) ? That can seems parodic but I&#x27;ve seen real conversations like that.<p>The idea public services who cannot aldready read all the professionally redacted reports will suddently became omniscient because they can read my discord server private channel is funny.<p>Hope some representative will jump on the occasion to request more social worker founds to treat the case we aldready know about.
评论 #31489501 未加载
评论 #31498486 未加载
mcv将近 3 年前
This is a very well written article that justifies its criticism of the EC&#x27;s proposal with facts and numbers. Based on this, it really does look like child abuse is merely used as an excuse for more general surveillance.
评论 #31489289 未加载
评论 #31491660 未加载
评论 #31489713 未加载
oblak将近 3 年前
When someone says they&#x27;re doing this or that &quot;for the children&quot;, you can be 100% sure they&#x27;re not. Always. The children are the one truly universal excuse for being a horrible piece of shit. Even religion takes a second place.<p>&quot;Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him&quot;<p>Cardinal Richelieu, protector of children
_fizz_buzz_将近 3 年前
Fortunately, this will very likely not pass (at least as is). Germany already announced they would block it.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spiegel.de&#x2F;netzwelt&#x2F;netzpolitik&#x2F;chatkontrolle-messenger-ueberwachung-duerfte-an-deutschland-scheitern-a-61338f80-839f-4798-b8d9-180e7a5bb711" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spiegel.de&#x2F;netzwelt&#x2F;netzpolitik&#x2F;chatkontrolle-me...</a>
评论 #31490153 未加载
dontbenebby将近 3 年前
I am a (physical) abuse survivor.<p>I cannot emphasize enough that members of the tech policy community must abandon the &quot;think of the children&quot; line of rhetoric to weaken the internet.<p>I don&#x27;t want to think about your children. I don&#x27;t want to interact with your children.<p>I&#x27;ve met people who have. People who don&#x27;t just go out onto the internet to be disagreeable, but truly believe what they are saying.<p>That context collapse of &quot;oh, you&#x27;re serious?&quot; paired with my sincere view that those folks can get in the ground with Jeffrey Epstein, has been quite the journey.<p>(I crafted the above sentence after extensive therapy, to make it clear: I will not hurt someone just because of their &quot;sexual preference&quot;.)<p>But there&#x27;s a Breaking Bad episode that shows what happens when someone who is not your caregiver decides not to interact -- you will choke on your own vomit and die, or otherwise come to some end that wouldn&#x27;t have if you hadn&#x27;t been all alone.<p>(I&#x27;m on the autistic spectrum, and a huge prestige TV geek.)<p>You can engineer society to coerce folks, you can invent ever creative reasons to monitor folks who the data shows have always tried to give folks autonomy to make decisions paired with accurate data, but then... well turn on the news.<p>You will what you voted for. Power outages because your independent grid minus federal money rotten then got hit with a superstorm. Condos collapsing because no one did the checks. And the bridge the local tech savvy at risk youth called for help from under may literally fall down.<p>What &quot;civil&quot; society needs to do is believe victims.<p>Testimony is evidence. Value it as much as... computer stuff.<p>Or own that if you decide otherwise, there may be civil unrest.<p>- Greg, from Cub Scout Troop 262.
评论 #31492328 未加载
hericium将近 3 年前
&gt; Data shows that the EU&#x27;s CSAM scanning will not have the intended effect.<p>The intended effect is a totalitarian surveillance. Children are (ab)used by the EU Commission as a pretext which nobody would want to argue with.
verisimi将近 3 年前
Every natural right can be revoked in the name of &#x27;safetyism&#x27;. And this is what government want - they want to be the arbitrators of rights and law.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.collinsdictionary.com&#x2F;submission&#x2F;23179&#x2F;safetyism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.collinsdictionary.com&#x2F;submission&#x2F;23179&#x2F;safetyism</a>
评论 #31489365 未加载
rob_c将近 3 年前
But if you have nothing to hide it will save you from yourself...<p>&quot;Think of the Children&quot; has been the immoral rallying cry after it worked so well in the UK for passing several 5-eyes compatible laws into power will little resistance. The message poltically became that we will accuse you of putting childrens lives at risk if you object to this overly complex law that you as a politician likely don&#x27;t understand.
spupe将近 3 年前
It&#x27;s so primitive that laws can be proposed without any proper numeric estimate of their possible impact. How many Europeans would be ok with a draconian surveillance mechanism if they knew we would be preventing only a handful of abuses?
评论 #31490753 未加载
评论 #31491309 未加载
concordDance将近 3 年前
The clickbait headline put me off, but it&#x27;s actually quite well reasoned.
评论 #31489307 未加载
espadrine将近 3 年前
I don’t like this line of argument: it has weak knees for 3 reasons.<p>1. They question the “1 in 5 children are abused” figure. That is fair: it seems tremendous at first sight. But the real figure of 1 in 10 that they reveal is very close and similarly shocking…<p>2. They emphasize that children know their abusers. But then imply that scanning chat messages cannot help in this situation. There is an obvious retort: abusers can abuse children in their local community and share images of their abuse online. Catching that sharing can identify them and stop them. (I cannot see any statistics on how many, among abusers, actively share things about it online. Intuitively, it would be a low percentage, but that argument is not used.)<p>3. They calculate that police surveillance orders were only issued for 0.1% of abuse cases, implying that they do it so little because it is ineffective. But the obvious retort is that they do it so little because they have no grounds to do so. “A chat sent from this person’s phone tripped the detector” is a reasonable justification. (I expect there are some much more obvious ways to have that justification which are poorly tapped, like confidential school reporting. But that is not part of the argument.)<p>The fundamental argument should be that abusers are listening to the EU too. They will gear up. There is nothing anyone can detect in encrypted base64 sent by chat or other means.<p>Meanwhile, any weakness created by this system will be turned into abuse imparted on the innocents, like sharing to an unwitting victim a zipped adversarial image of a prairie whose pixels were flipped until it triggered the detection.<p>Overall, that, along with a possibly inadequate false positive rate given the rarity of real abusers 1) actively sharing and 2) doing so insecurely, it is possible that this system would cause more victims than it would help.
评论 #31490349 未加载
kkfx将近 3 年前
It&#x27;s obvious to anyone that mass surveillance is not against crime BUT to commit larger crimes, like dictatorship and oppression, like homogenization of humans destroying the mechanism keep us evolving etc.<p>The point is: how many, understood that, decide that&#x27;s about time to say STOP, <i>pretending</i> immediate arrest and trial for crimes against humanity, attempted coup, high treason, embezzlement etc to our formal politicians and their private-sector shoulder?<p>For what I see very few. At that point, missing Citizens, we can&#x27;t have Democracy, so at that point it&#x27;s perfectly legit morally consider certain level of ignorance like a sort of soft-crime and so pushing toward a new neofeudal society where the cohort of Citizens abuse the crowd of subjects, like our oppressors do, for Citizens interests. Of course it&#x27;s not easy, but that&#x27;s is.
sylware将近 3 年前
The &quot;abused children&quot; are presented as an excuse to setup some &quot;dangerous&quot; technical systems which in the end will be used mostly by the music&#x2F;movie industry for their own benefit.
ernirulez将近 3 年前
EU is becoming an authoritarian estate. Made by burocrats to control and manipulate european citizens.
diebeforei485将近 3 年前
I&#x27;m not sure how we get away from this. Something being illegal to possess (because &#x27;possess&#x27; means something different back during the days of physical media than it does now with digital files) will always be used to justify these overbearing enforcement mechanisms. Perhaps we should downgrade these from criminal to civil issues except for extreme cases.
langsoul-com将近 3 年前
I think someone wrote about the 4 horseman of the apocolyse. Where first it was using terrorism to pass suevillence, and now it&#x27;s CSAM.
mjburgess将近 3 年前
I disagree with the policy, but this article is far less well-thought than other commenters think.<p>* That child abuse is largely familial is irrelevant. It is precisely long-term child abuse which becomes CSAM.<p>* That 10% of children are abused is a large figure. That, now, c. 70% of CSAM is children generating their own material (using presumably scannable devices), <i>provides a significant justification</i> for scanning those devices.<p>* That police forces are ineffective at combating both abuse and CSAM is irrelevant. Government&#x27;s ability to prioritise child abuse in policing is presumably sensitive to its effectiveness, and other policing priorities. If the EU <i>could</i> pass a tech regulation law to cut down a vast amount of online CSAM, then why wouldnt they?<p>* The government isnt a unified entity, like a person, with some coherent set of priorities. Speaking of it this way will <i>always</i> induce some paranoia. The police&#x27;s priorities, EU&#x27;s tech groups, EU states, EU police forces, etc. are all different orgs with different, incoherent, actions.<p>I think the issue of children now being the major generators of CSAM here is perhaps the key one.... I suspect there&#x27;s a counter-proposal here which requires children&#x27;s devices to have optional software on them.
pbhjpbhj将近 3 年前
<i>Please correct me with links to corroborating evidence of I&#x27;m wrong.</i><p>AIUI the proposal is to check file hashes of content against a blacklist of known CSAM?<p>The linked website is calling this &quot;total surveillance&quot; and saying the EU are lying and exaggerating.<p>It&#x27;s total surveillance in the way that looking at the postcode on all envelopes is total surveillance whereby of you send something to a postcode of a known terrorist then it&#x27;s going to be noticed and may be investigated.<p>On the OP&#x27;s serving point, a minor email provider not getting a lot of notifications on alerted child abuse investigations compared to the total numbers of children being abused is because there&#x27;s not enough resources to investigate more cases. Reducing the resources needed per case by catching low-hanging fruit easily with automated and non-intrusive methods is positively indicated by the OP&#x27;s evidence here.
ccbccccbbcccbb将近 3 年前
All the narratives that justify total surveillance are fake. Now that&#x27;s a revelation!<p>What next? Hydrologists admit there&#x27;s some water in the ocean? Chromatologists discover that the sky is color blue?
arlort将近 3 年前
So, laudable intent because some of the articles in the proposed regulation are dumb beyond measure<p>But it doesn&#x27;t help their credibility that they made an entire article debunking the wrong entity<p>Of the three claims they &quot;debunk&quot; only the 90% of content being hosted in the EU was a claim made by the EU commission, specifically in 2020 by Johansson, the data seems to come from an NGO called Internet Watch Foundation [0] and it does seem unlikely (from a quick glance I think the 90% claim is about content reported within europe, which makes the statement more likely. But in any case it wouldn&#x27;t matter because for the critical pieces of the legislation it&#x27;s not a claim that would justify the measures anyway)<p>But in the other two points the website is constantly referring to this website:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;human-rights-channel.coe.int&#x2F;stop-child-sexual-abuse-in-sport-en.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;human-rights-channel.coe.int&#x2F;stop-child-sexual-abuse...</a><p>and acting as if the Eu commission authored it. The issue is that this website is hosted and authored by the Council of Europe (hence the coe.int domain), an entity entirely disjointed from the EU, of which the EU institutions aren&#x27;t even a member. This is confusing to people because there are two organizations (European Council and Council of the European Union) which are part of the EU<p>While the intent of the article is laudable and the scanning parts of the regulation have got to go the &quot;Trumpiest&quot; part of this whole thing is the fact that this website made a whole debunking article based on such thorough research that they didn&#x27;t even notice they were getting the subject of the debunking wrong<p>(on the positive side it looks like the german government also agrees, so the chances of those parts going away in amendments increased significantly [1])<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.euractiv.com&#x2F;section&#x2F;digital&#x2F;news&#x2F;europe-is-worlds-largest-host-of-child-pornography-advocacy-groups-say&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.euractiv.com&#x2F;section&#x2F;digital&#x2F;news&#x2F;europe-is-worl...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spiegel.de&#x2F;netzwelt&#x2F;netzpolitik&#x2F;chatkontrolle-messenger-ueberwachung-duerfte-an-deutschland-scheitern-a-61338f80-839f-4798-b8d9-180e7a5bb711" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.spiegel.de&#x2F;netzwelt&#x2F;netzpolitik&#x2F;chatkontrolle-me...</a>
tut-urut-utut将近 3 年前
It&#x27;s hard to expect honesty from the EU Commission when man looks who sit there. Almost all the EU heads have or had a court process running in their respective countries.<p>I would not believe Frau von der Layen even if she told me 2+2=4.
gentleman11将近 3 年前
Did apple inspire this?
pfortuny将近 3 年前
I just want to point out that lots of the sexual abuse of children are by the child&#x27;s parent(s) (mostly the father, obviously). This is something that is not taken into account and for which any &quot;communication surveillance&quot; policy is useless.<p>But nobody tries to assess this because, yes, the aim is not the children. It is power.
评论 #31489924 未加载
评论 #31489421 未加载
评论 #31491461 未加载
评论 #31493388 未加载
评论 #31489497 未加载
mattiperakyla将近 3 年前
famously objective and apolitical hackernews having another normal one