The war on privacy and encryption goes on. This time in the UK. Under the “Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill”, lawmakers now want client-side scanning on every phone and tablet.
The lawmakers write: “Any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM using that device.”
1/4
As far as I know self regulation by media industries implementing age labels prevented these kinds of “think of the children” bills before. No idea where you got the corporations having private information from, the entire idea is that it would be open source so we can know that it’s not doing anything shady.
Politicians pushing for these bills don’t care about the excuse they present, but the reason they can repeatedly use the same excuse is because it is a legitimate concern for people. I don’t think digging our heels in to refuse a solution even if it were to align with our stated principle of preserving privacy helps us in the public consciousness.
even worse invasions of privacy
“worse” isn’t accurate as the entire point is that it would be designed to be non-invasive (for people who don’t have csam anyways). Of course they’ll keep trying to invade our privacy but with the example of a solution that doesn’t use mass surveillance for something they tried to push surveillance for, they’ll have less leg to stand on.
What made you think I was proposing a scheme compliant with the bill? I repeatedly said that this would be to prevent such a bill from passing. And explained my reasoning why it would do so.
To make it doubly clear: I don’t support what they’re trying to do. I just think it could do us good to ourselves address any legitimate concerns they use as excuses to implement surveillance so it’s harder to use them as excuses.
deleted by creator
As far as I know self regulation by media industries implementing age labels prevented these kinds of “think of the children” bills before. No idea where you got the corporations having private information from, the entire idea is that it would be open source so we can know that it’s not doing anything shady.
Politicians pushing for these bills don’t care about the excuse they present, but the reason they can repeatedly use the same excuse is because it is a legitimate concern for people. I don’t think digging our heels in to refuse a solution even if it were to align with our stated principle of preserving privacy helps us in the public consciousness.
“worse” isn’t accurate as the entire point is that it would be designed to be non-invasive (for people who don’t have csam anyways). Of course they’ll keep trying to invade our privacy but with the example of a solution that doesn’t use mass surveillance for something they tried to push surveillance for, they’ll have less leg to stand on.
deleted by creator
What made you think I was proposing a scheme compliant with the bill? I repeatedly said that this would be to prevent such a bill from passing. And explained my reasoning why it would do so.
To make it doubly clear: I don’t support what they’re trying to do. I just think it could do us good to ourselves address any legitimate concerns they use as excuses to implement surveillance so it’s harder to use them as excuses.