I agree, child protection isn’t what’s driving this. It’s the deflection

What evidence do you have to support this? Everything I can see suggests that they sincerely believe this will help protect children.

The way the EU Commission handled whistleblower Roelie Post regarding child trafficking makes me think the safety of children is not the highest priority of the EU Commission. Even today she lives in fear and under a lot of pressure as can be seen on her Twitter account.

Basically the EU Commission punished her for being a whistleblower.

http://www.roeliepost.com/

https://www-vpro-nl.translate.goog/argos/lees/nieuws/2019/Ge...

What evidence is there that spying on the public will reduce child molestation? When you consider that the majority of perpetrators are family members how would spying on the publics chat help detect or prevent that? I don't think there are many child molesters boasting about it tbh. Would such a law prevent child molestation or prevent molesters from talking about it?

There is no evidence and little reason to believe this will protect children. Before infringing on innocent peoples privacy there must be some evidence that it will actually help protect children. There is no evidence to support this nor calls to study the efficacy idea. Makes me think protecting children is not the intention of their spying.

Especially because in the US we already do this and the sky hasn’t fallen. Storage providers and hosting services already scan for it and popular chat apps block sending matching images client side.

Like everyone saying this is the spiral to dystopia has to contend with the fact that we’re already apparently living in one.

The sky hasn’t fallen?? Have you read https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil... ?

Not the first of such stories either:

https://borncity.com/win/2020/08/16/microsoft-kontensperrung...

This is why I explicitly make on-site backups of anything that's in the cloud and don't store my passwords with Apple. If they suddenly decided I had CSAM for some reason, I'd be locked out of everything.

Google found an image of potential cp, literally a naked child, and forwarded it to the authorities to figure out if it was legit.

Other than the person having their Google account suspended which is a separate issue from the surveillance I see zero issue with the events as they happened. In a bygone era where you had to get photos developed I would have expected the 1 hour photo employee to do the same.

That’s a totally alien idea to me. I grew up in a very nudity-friendly family in Europe and the idea that something as trivial as a naked photograph could occasion such a quasi-disaster is absolutely horrifying.

A photo of a naked child isn’t automatically CP

Which is was forwarded to the police for them to make that determination, do you want the alternative where Google decides?

A lot of Europeans would consider the US fairly dystopian, yes.

The alarm here is because the EU is proposing mandating it, that’s not happened yet in the US.

What? The US doesn't do this. What's the law that mandates scanning chat messages?

I think the US does it without the law. They’re proactive like that

> "Saying that this is about child protection is a blatant lie."

Why do you think this? What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children?

Helen Lovejoy wasn't lying, she was sincerely (but irrationally) concerned for the children.

HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments (that they are deliberately secretly plotting to be despotic, and using the cover of trying to protect children) with no actual evidence, just a lot of winks and eyebrow wiggling. Complete abdication of rational thinking.

> What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children?

If they sent people into the the real world (where the children are), instead of passively spying on bits and bytes

> HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments

Not a conspiracy theory, and not specific to HN. I dare say it's a mainstream opinion, which explains why they can't openly admit to it and the document had to be leaked (similar to Edward Snowden in the US). This comic predates HN: https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg

> If they sent people into the the real world (where the children are), instead of passively spying on bits and bytes

What would those people do in the real world? Kind of a rhetorical question but if you have a good answer then shoot :)

One piece of evidence is that authorities pushing hard for surveillance do not actually care about removing images they find, even though removal requests are easy to file and are obeyed by hosters.[0]

More evidence is that this sort of crime is being exaggerated in its severity. E.g. this study found the risk of adulthood psychological trauma is minimal when relying on objective evidence of abuse.[1] It is filthy and bad, but the total damage seems hardly enough to justify abolishing privacy.

There is always going to be a tradeoff between safety and freedom.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31353026

[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0880-3

> Why do you think this?

Because it's happened before. Systems put in place nominally to fight child abuse end up being used for copyright enforcement.

Do you have links for those systems? I can't find anything, but "copyright" is not a good Google search term...

Governments don't need to secretly plot to be despotic. They're fairly open about it.

Here we are discussing a government demanding that they are able to access all private communications in order to ensure it's all perfectly legal, and yet you don't see this as despotic.

So it's not a conspiracy, because so many people don't even see it as despotic they aren't afraid to do it in the open.

Losing the ability to have a private conversation online is so blatantly harmful to individual liberties I cannot comprehend how a thinking person isn't alarmed by it.

This technology is ineffective at saving children and highly effective at ruining more lives than it could theoretically save even with perfect conditions.

Yes, both true, but in no way contrary to the statement you're replying to.

Politicians in general are highly ignorant on technology and have no clue about the impact of ideas like this. They get advice from advisory boards populated by political science students that had internships at IT companies and are now 'advisor on AI in government'. Sometimes they get external advice from expensive consultants that tell them what they want to hear, especially if they think they might be able to sell more projects afterwards.

So, a politician who objectively wants to protect children in a modern world will come up with dumb ideas like this and get confirmation that it's not a dumb idea. It's Hanlon's Razor at work.

> Why do you think this?

Because Zensursula has tried to pull off this trick before. Her party is very eager to introduce more surveillance and they like to brush off technical and ethical concerns.

> HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments (that they are deliberately secretly plotting to be despotic, and using the cover of trying to protect children) with no actual evidence, just a lot of winks and eyebrow wiggling. Complete abdication of rational thinking.

Ha, I don't think most HNers would be quick to say think their governments are capable of conspiracy. I think most would say it's just more your regular run of the mill taxpayer-funded incompetency.

> Why do you think this?

Anyone with a bayesian world-model thinks this. It's one of the most tired and obvious lies of all time, to the point that "think of the children" is a well-known trope.

> What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children?

Their behavior would have to actually reflect such a stance.

A major rule in life is to listen to what people do, not what they say.

What they'll do is listen to every online conversation anyone has.

You are disingenuous. 'Gliding path' is standard practice in the EU.