Are...are you okay? Do we need to get you anything?... Blink twice if your in danger...
BlackXanthus
joined 1 year ago
I have to say that I totally agree with the notion of looking for something that isn't. 'digital sugar rush'.
I enjoyed the deeper and harder discussions around politics, theology and philosophy. However, I only ever posted when I had something to add to the conversation as a lot of the subs I was in were modded by experts, and I'm at best an interested layperson.
I think for the moment at least, I need to brave commenting more. I guess we will have to so is we can attract the same experts to this platform, and get the same level of discussion.
I have to say this is quite a worrying abuse. Both of software, and of privacy.
It's being deployed for something it's not meant for, and being used to remove liberties for it. Of course, much of this will be lost to media circles as in CSA cases, the presumption is guilt in the public's mind.
Whatever the truth of the original conviction, the use of this software as a condition of bail should be banned, and abhorrent to anyone who values justice.
That is not to say the software doesn't have it's uses - especially in cases of porn addiction. However, the software is nowhere near good enough to be used in legal cases. It says so itself. It errs, intentionally, on gathering more data, on being more conservative, simply because it's not good enough to make the judgement on its own.
That's before we look at the unintentional consequences of impinging on the freedom of an innocent person ('Hannah'), and the way in which the software is not 'intelligent' enough to make judgements on whether or not it should take a photo of emails. It also led to fear of accessing help (and an inability to access help).
Use of this software in this way is an abuse.