Comment by mrtksn
2 days ago
Then I'm not very moved about this. I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another. What I care is not having a backdoor for E2E, i.e. like client-side scanning telling me what I am allowed to talk about like with the LLMs. CSAM excuse is a great excuse to turn every conversation to what we have with AI today.
If reading messages that are not for ones eyes is OK, then it is a much smaller step to the next level, which is to also being able to read encrypted messages. Slowly boiling the frog.
But the next level IS the chat control 2.0 and yes it is the one people should be concerned about. But it's not like this is unprecedented this is literally just an extension of something that existed.
I assume the same, but not because it’s sanctioned. Sanctioning is a slippery slope or a degree change as has been mentioned.
And the temperature of the frog pot rises by one degree.
[flagged]
I disagree. The definition of "bad actor" constantly changes. Something you do legally today can and will become illegal in the future, and if you don't change your ways, you will be a bad actor, too.
The people pushing for this under the guise of protecting children are the same people who went on The Island, or at least protect those who did. They never cared about children's safety.
The biggest criminals of all are the very same people pushing for these laws, this surveillance, this control. Don't be fooled.
2 replies →
It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here.
4 replies →
> I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another
By this logic, I should be happy if mail delivered to my address always arrives already open.