Frankly, good.
There has yet to be any of these purported "child protection" scams that would do a damn thing for kids, and only invades the privacy of people that have zero reason to be investigated in the first place
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
219 points (91.0% liked)
Technology
60070 readers
3936 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They could at least do on-device hash lookups and prevent sending. Has zero effect on privacy and does reduce CSAM.
Yah, that would be a great solution in comparison, but it's still privacy invasive. Not as bad, but it's still not giving people due process.
Which, not everywhere in the world recognizes that principle as a right, I am aware. But I do consider due process a right, and scanning anything on anyone's devices without a legally justifiable reason is a violation of that.
I'm not willing to kowtow to a moral panic and just ignore the erosion of privacy "because the children". And it is a moral panic. As bad as it is, as much as I personally would enjoy five minutes alone with someone that's making or using kiddie porn of any stripe, it simply isn't such a common thing that stripping everyone of their privacy, in any way is acceptable.
They wanna figure out a way to target individuals suspected of that kind of crime, awesome. Untargeted, sweeping invasions simply are not acceptable, and I do not care what the purported reason of the week is; kiddie porn, terrorism, security, stopping drugs, I do not care. I have committed no crime, and refuse to give away the presumption of innocence for myself or anyone else.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
If the programs were anything like this, I don't blame them. There's a fine line between child protection and surveillance.
Bingo. The article even says that Telegram has removed confirmed content.
Hmm. I think many services just don't and can't participate because they'd need to break E2EE. Telegram wouldn't with most chats.
When the West wants to censor the internet its always either child protection or national security.thats brought up as the reason.
The west
Are authoritarian regimes somehow supposed to be more opposed to using children to promote heightened surveillance?
I mean... Yes?
They don't need to lie to sell their oppression. They just do it because they're authoritarian.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Authoritarian regimes also do the same, although often with adult consentual porn instead of CSAM.
The authoritarian South Korea.
Ayo. The country that has
- a stifling work culture
- zero tolerance porn laws
- full blown internet censorship
- chaebols
- harsh punishment on even the softest of "drugs"
- miniscule support for new families
is definitely not authoritarian.
It's okay. With the childbirth rate they have currently, they don't have to worry for much longer. Let's just squeeze the last out of the current generations.
More like a colony of an authoritarian empire.
Authoritian regimes doesnt need to pretend. If they find out you are a risk they don't need to gather evidence to get you in prison, so they don't need to pretend they care about censoring the internet for the wrong reasons.
The issue here is the west want to do the same but need a valid justification. Instead of work to stop the actual abuse in the first place they want access to the only way for many people to share information safely.
You could be technically letrate and find your way around all the restrictions, but many people are not and they need access to secure communication channels to arrange there activism.
The fact we don't see backlash against twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple tells alot about what is this about.
The fact we are seeing more support for "consent" for kids, and the fact that there were many major cases such as Epstein and Maxwell which has been obscured or even hidden when it comes to major profilic people says alot about their intent.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thank you for choosing “Tyranny as a Service!”
How would you like this wrapped? [ ] Terrorism [X] Child porn
If they refused to hand over data that they had about individuals on a warrant, I can see how the arrest was kind of justified.
If the arrest was for refusing to install a backdoor for law enforcement to spy on anyone they want, then France needs to be kicked out of EU and sanctioned for human rights violations.
Systemic racism and religious discrimination persisted, including against Muslim women and girls. Racial profiling continued with impunity. Excessive restrictions on protests and excessive use of force by police continued. Mass protests and unrest followed the killing of a 17-year-old boy of Algerian descent by police at a traffic stop. Racist, xenophobic and anti-LGBTI vandalism and violent attacks were frequently reported.
Parliament passed highly controversial new laws authorizing the use of mass video surveillance technology by law enforcement and introducing discriminatory immigration, nationality and asylum restrictions.
Yeah, fuck France.
As a French? Yeah fuck France...
then France needs to be kicked out of EU and sanctioned
This isn't how the EU works.
I'm exaggerating, but France should be held accountable.
Why would they be kicked out of the EU? The EU wants this too: https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/19/24181214/eu-chat-control-law-propose-scanning-encrypted-messages-csam
They've been delaying a vote on it because they haven't had enough support to get it through.
Looks like they'll prepare another round in October, which would be voted on in December. They'll want this to pass under the radar, preferably behind closed doors.
Seems enough countries have changed their stance that it could pass this time, unless we keep putting pressure on our representatives.
The manufacturing consent system seems to be in full swing on this one.
If there were a good alternative in the sense of public channels that don't usually get banned, my consent they would get even earlier.
But the issue is - I don't even know where to go to discuss shit. Despite TG being full of government trolls.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Did religions joined child protection schemes? Because they are one of the biggest child indoctrination and abuse schemes in the world.
Ruling class has been waging war on social media they dont have the ability to backdoor. My guess is they'd come for signal too if they didn't use it themselves.
The government don't usually need the text from your conversations, just the metadata who the person talks to, their location, etc. Signal is a US company, they surely provide all that data. It seems Telegram didn't.
Signal does not. https://signal.org/bigbrother/santa-clara-county/
Tl;dr: Signal gave the court timestamps for three out of nine phone numbers that the court demanded data on. The timestamps were the dates three phone numbers last registered their accounts with Signal. That’s it. That is all the data there was to give.
This is why I use Signal. This is why I donate monthly to Signal.
"Schemes" it's as if they know they aren't actually protecting anyone... Like they would just let anyone torment their children if they claimed religious protections and offered a big enough bribe(I know for a fact that is how it actually works). But sure, telegram is the problem not fed bastards hunting innocent people because the bad people bribed them to leave them alone. Be a 1% or be investigated when you don't cow toe to the 1%. Your choice apparently.
Did the child protection schemes involve compromising the security of communications on the app?
The BBC contacted Telegram for comment about its refusal to join the child protection schemes and received a response after publication which has been included.
Where is it? I didn't find it anywhere in the article.
view more: next ›