Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by Hizonner on Monday June 03, 2024 @08:11AM
(#40561897)
> I think it's very hard to deny that of course it will catch a non-zero number of people,
Sure, but it is still completely valid to argue that it won't quantitatively be effective enough to justify its cost, either in money or in creating-the-infrastructure-for-a-fucking-police-state. "Non-zero" isn't necessarily an acceptable level of effectiveness.
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by arp242 on Monday June 03, 2024 @09:37AM
(#40562509)
Yes, but that is a very different argument than "it doesn't work at all". Then we can start discussing what the balance ought to be and all of that, rather than just a "Njet! It won't work!"
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by pzo on Monday June 03, 2024 @11:03AM
(#40563305)
It will work maybe somehow the first time. Predators will adapt and start using obfuscation same like thiefts adapt - burgler expect that most doors will be locked and might have camera and will bring balaclava and crowbar to their 'workplace'
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by vasco on Monday June 03, 2024 @06:20AM
(#40561165)
I think you're making my argument out to be something else. I'm not saying we can only have laws that are bulletproof. But the fact they think links and text are different things, makes me _know_ they don't understand what they are doing. So I know their interpretation of the risk/reward is also not good and it's annoying to have freedoms taken away by dummies. If I get the impression they are smart and looked into it I'd swallow it way easier.
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by arp242 on Monday June 03, 2024 @06:31AM
(#40561229)
> the fact they think links and text are different things
I don't think anyone really thinks that.
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by vasco on Monday June 03, 2024 @06:36AM
(#40561269)
Maybe I have some misunderstanding from the draft legislation. Can you explain how one can prevent users from sharing links while keeping them able to share text?
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by arp242 on Monday June 03, 2024 @06:49AM
(#40561350)
You can't. But like I said: of course it's not 100% foolproof. Going from that to "they think links and text are different things" is quite a leap.
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by InCityDreams on Monday June 03, 2024 @07:14AM
(#40561509)
First message: p 0 r n, s i 7 e
Second message: dot
Third message: come on over.
Forth message: Sorry my mistake, organising the house.
After a while the second, third and fourth won't be required.
Jeeze...we learned obfuscation fucking years ago (torrenting was punishable then, probably is still, and a few people may be made examples of, by ip tracking etc as subscribing becomes more disliked).
Re:EU: Users who refuse scanning to be prevented from sharin...
by mikrotikker on Monday June 10, 2024 @10:53AM
(#40634275)
If it's not close to 100% is it even worth it? I think Blackstone's formulation has something to say about all those innocents caught up in it.
Of course it won't catch 100% of it, but very few laws or measure do that (and those that do almost always come with very high amounts of false positives). Also links are not hard to scan for either, and you can't "just" upload CSAM to anywhere either and not expect troubles sooner or later (unless you know what you're doing, in which case we're back to the previous paragraph).
I think it's very hard to deny that of course it will catch a non-zero number of people, although it's hard to determine exactly how many beforehand. That doesn't mean it's a good law, it just means that all these type of "it won't even catch anyone!" argument are just bad arguments.