[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"