undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdanbruc2y ago0 comments

That position says that to achieve privacy, I must tolerate CSAM. I want both privacy and for us not to tolerate CSAM.

Not true, you can have privacy and at the same time not tolerate child pornography, those are two perfectly compatible positions and arguably the current state. What you can not have - by definition - is privacy on the one hand and on the other hand no privacy in order to look for child pornography. You can still fight child pornography in any other way, but when it comes to privacy, you have to make a choice - give people their privacy or look through their stuff for illegal content, you can not have both. If you have enough evidence, a judge might even grant law enforcement the permission for privacy violating measures, it should just not be the default position that your privacy gets violated.

0 comments

salawat2y ago

...Now that, is a well conceived viewpoint, but I still argue policy-wise, that no penalties can conscionably be assessed for failure to engage in said activity without spreading the taint of deputization, which de-facto unmakes your stance. As a government deputy, you don't have that privacy. If you are not compelled to act as a deputy of the State, I can accept you escalating to NCMEC, but we also have to accept there is no recourse for providers who turn a blind eye to the whole thing.

Failure to recognize this perpetuates the fundamental inconsistency.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

salawat2y ago

Failure to recognize this perpetuates the fundamental inconsistency.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse