suizi

9 ms·

1.
by suizi 5y ago
I seriously doubt the majority of cases are recorded and uploaded to the internet.
2.
by suizi 5y ago
No, but "we've got to hunt down every image" isn't really an argument which ends there, so it might go further in the future.
3.
by suizi 5y ago
It's not that I don't want to give you a sunny solution which makes the problem go away forever, but this is an extremely difficult problem to solve, especially as someone might be located in some foreign country with ineffective
4.
by suizi 5y ago
France has been pushing terrorism as a justification for mass-surveillance in the E.U.
5.
by suizi 5y ago
Security by obscurity has never been particularly effective, and there are some articles which allege that detection algorithms can be defeated fairly easily.
6.
by suizi 5y ago
There have certainly been busts in the media, including some depraved individuals who have blackmailed teenagers into sending them images, one of which set the dangerous precedent of tech companies developing exploits, and refusing to discl
7.
by suizi 5y ago
It's well-known that this algorithm doesn't have a perfect matching rate. It'd be easy to presume that any false positives are not erroneously tagged images, but the error rate of the underlying algorithm, if all the images w
8.
by suizi 5y ago
The FBI doesn't even have the resources to review all the reports they do get (we learned that in 2019), and yet they want to intrude on everyone's rights to get even more to investigate (which they won't).
9.
by suizi 5y ago
As many, many people have pointed out, building a mechanism to scan things client-side is something which could easily be extended to encrypted content, and perhaps, is intended to be extended at a moment's notice to encrypted content,
10.
by suizi 5y ago
Moving the scanning to the client side is clearly an attempt to move towards scanning content which is about to be posted on encrypted services, otherwise they could do it on the server-side, which is "not categorically unprecedented&q
11.
by suizi 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081184 The NCMEC already had it's problems. But, this takes it to a whole new level.
12.
by suizi 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081184 It's a bit worse than that.
13.
by suizi 5y ago
NCMEC is an private organization created by the U.S. Government, funded by the U.S. Government, operates with no constitutional scrutiny, operates with no oversight / accountability, could be prodded by the U.S. Government, and they te
14.
by suizi 5y ago
It doesn't mean they can't look at the matches without jailing you (still a violation of privacy).
15.
by suizi 5y ago
Well, it's a lot like everything. No one wants abusers, murderers, and others out and about. But then, we can't search everyone's homes all of the time for dead bodies, or other crimes. We would all be better off without thes
16.
by suizi 5y ago
There have been child abuse victims who have openly condemned this sort of intrusion on privacy, although they obviously don't speak for them all.
17.
by suizi 5y ago
But, are they? The Swiss federal police weren't too happy about the reports they received from the Cyber Tip.
18.
by suizi 5y ago
A good start would be for the government to stop trying to bully tech companies into compromising on their privacy.
19.
by suizi 6y ago
Is there any reason they shouldn't have adoption rights? What's the harm in that?
20.
by suizi 6y ago
I don't think it is possible to turn someone who is straight gay, anymore than it is possible to turn someone who is gay straight. The exception would be where they're bi, but they would already have had some interest in the same
21.
by suizi 6y ago
I presume they meant ones who have committed crimes, rather than ones who roughly fit a profile of who might commit homicide. I agree that profiling someone like this could lead into some serious Minority Report territory where you try to a
22.
by suizi 6y ago
There's another side. Conversion therapy of any form is inhumane. It makes someone deny their very identity. It may even drive them to suicide. And for what, so someone doesn't get offended by their existence?
23.
by suizi 6y ago
My question would be closer to, how would you feel if someone high up decided to strip away your attraction to women, and replace it with an attraction to men, because they deemed this more "appropriate", or positive to society. A
24.
by suizi 6y ago
I don't think it is entirely genetic. There are other factors like development within the mother's body, levels of hormones / chemicals, and so on which could contribute to a different sexuality later on. This doesn't me
25.
by suizi 6y ago
It's more that some people think "people choose to do things society greatly disapproves of", that is going out of their way to be difficult, and they want to punish them for this. But, then you would have to consider why it
26.
by suizi 6y ago
A name which Google isn't familiar with (Riot, as opposed to Element) is a possible reason they were suspended in the first place.
27.
by suizi 6y ago
Google is so big that one head doesn't know what the other is doing. Some people probably do know what Matrix is, but that doesn't mean the right people do. It's still a big problem that Google isn't even making the effo
28.
by suizi 6y ago
Does Europe have the power to split Google? Or does that lie with U.S. regulators?
29.
by suizi 6y ago
It's scary how Google can automatically ban a client for a network with millions of users like this without even batting an eye.
30.
by suizi 6y ago
Wikipedia says the very opposite of what you're claiming.

More ›