[throwaway290]

You are speculating about intents some other people might have.

Let's take the issue in vacuum first. Either you hold your privacy as more important than X, or you are willing to compromise some of your privacy in the name of X-- there's no third option. Eg. in case of airport security or CCTV in some public space suddenly everyone is OK compromising personal privacy in the name of personal life and safety.

Now finally let's get back to those other people whom you suspect of having an agenda to surveil everybody. If they honestly tried to combat child abuse, how do you see them going about it?

[whelp_24]

"If they honestly tried to combat child abuse, how do you see them going about it?"

Detective work, stake outs, researching who makes this stuff, convicting the actual producers, convicting people who do direct abuse... In general, taking real steps instead of reading everyone's dairy and then doing nothing.

[throwaway290]

> Detective work, stake outs

So, physical surveillance. Idk if you are aware but this means physical surveillance on everyone, because with Tor you can't narrow this stuff geographically. Would you rather to be physically surveilled.

> researching who makes this stuff, convicting the actual producers, convicting people who do direct abuse

First it already happened when they used to expose identifying details. Those days are over.

Second, more importantly, what you described does nothing about resellers, aka the people who keep the abuse economy running and make money from it.

And please. Hash matching is not dairy reading.

And on the likely chance my dairy happens to have 1:1 collision with a know cp video, I would not mind if someone being able to look at it if it meant they also can look at the actual thing and identify reseller/perpetrator. How can you think differently?

[qwytw]

> Idk if you are aware but this means physical surveillance on everyone, because with Tor you can't narrow this stuff geographically. Would you rather to be physically surveilled.

Presumable the content is actually produced at some specific physical location.

> Hash matching is not dairy reading.

The article is not talking about has matching, though. Quote from one of the Europol officials:

“All data is useful and should be passed on to law enforcement, there should be no filtering by the [EU] Centre because even an innocent image might contain information that could at some point be useful to law enforcement,”

[throwaway290]

> Presumable the content is actually produced at some specific physical location

Yeah and how to find that location? If you are opposed to any measure that compromises your digital privacy, physical surveillance is the only way

> The article is not talking about has matching, though

Sure. In context of this subthread you are correct. But remember when Apple tried to do it with hash matching? They published a white paper detailing their algorithm. Remember how everyone here instantly whined about total surveillance? It was just like last year. The sentiment is always the same "my privacy may not be compromised if it concerns safety of helpless victims whom I don't care about"

[notpushkin]

> in case of airport security

Not everyone is OK – lots of people argue it's a security theatre.

[throwaway290]

Let's see if you think it's a security theatre next time you fly from Jordan to Israel. Or actually anywhere within the US, where gun carry is allowed...

[pasc1878]

Sopmer of it is theatre but screening people to make sure they don't have a bomb ios not theatre - people will do this as has been shown.

[throwaway290]

It is a bit weird in that screening started only after bombing... a useful metric would be to see how many times bookings/hijackings were thwarted. (which I would guess many)

[pasc1878]

No screening started after hijacking in the 1970s.

[qwytw]

> in case of airport security or CCTV in some public space suddenly everyone is OK compromising personal privacy in the name of personal life and safety.

These are not really comparable. Even without CCTVs you can't really expect that no one will observe you public areas (it's just that cost of doing so would be significantly higher).

Also it's something you have much more control over and it's significantly less intrusive than monitoring personal communication. e.g. an equivalent would be the government opening and reading every single letter you sent or received back in the days when people still sent them (or having the option to, which to be fair is something they probably had it was prohibitively expensive to do at scale). That is not something most people living in free societies found acceptable.

> If they honestly tried to combat child abuse, how do you see them going about it?

By actually directly targeting it as the other comment describes? Instead of using "think of the children!" as a vail to justify unlimited government surveillance.

> You are speculating about intents some other people might have.

Yes. Are you implying there is something fundamentally wrong with that? Do you always accept everything politicians say at face value? If so, perhaps you're on the market for a bridge?

[throwaway290]

> not comparable

Airport security literally checks the inside of your body (if they want to) through xray or other means. How you consider this not comparable in privacy invasiveness?

> By actually directly targeting it as the other comment describes

Please your own take. That comment didn't contribute anything useful.

> Are you implying there is something fundamentally wrong with that?

I can't believe this is a question. You realize you are putting your own thoughts in another person's head?

[qwytw]

> How you consider this not comparable in privacy invasiveness?

How is that comparable to having access to someone's personal communication? What's so particularly private about the 'inside' of anyone's body? Physically checking the outside seems much more invasive. But yeah, overall I agree that compromises can and should be made in certain cases when the potential harm to society might outweigh certain individual rights (I don't see how that might be the case in this situation).

> Please your own take. That comment didn't contribute anything useful.

I don't agree and to be fair more or less the same can be said about your previous comment.

> You realize you are putting your own thoughts in another person's head?

No. I'm trying to infer what thoughts might exist in another person's head when they do or say certain things. I don't really understand what are you implying (that we should never assume that no politicians have any hidden agendas and they they all are perfectly honest?)

[throwaway290]

> What's so particularly private about the 'inside' of anyone's body

Seriously? If your body is not private to you, then what's so particularly private about your communication?

> I don't agree

That's not an answer to "how would they go about it if their goal was to actually combat child abuse, as opposed to some conspiracy to surveil that you imagine"

> I'm trying to infer what thoughts might exist in another person's head when they do or say certain things

Exactly. It is what you think they think, not what they think, and such says more about your mind than theirs.