Olives @olives@social.cleverlibre.org

"The Commission also noted that measures which are sensitive to fundamental rights cannot be left to the discretion of private companies."
They say this but they'll probably just consult with that Hollywood actor which made a start-up selling scanning software for his bad take.

https://edri.org/our-work/voluntary-detection-measures-still-on-the-table-for-the-csa-regulation/
This is like the worst of all worlds.

Both Big Tech over-reach and government over-reach, however, I actually trust Big Tech here more than the E.U., even though I think Big Tech can over-reach.

The ideal would be to strike out the government authoritarianism and to rein Big Tech in, although that is probably a pipe dream.

"From the very start of the negotiations, EFF has opposed the draft convention as a whole, deeming it unnecessary."
I like this position.

There are already treaties and arrangements for cross-border collaboration in investigating crime, although it seems they want to cut some corners here and there.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/first-draft-un-cybercrime-treaty-drops-troubling-provisions-dangerous-and-open U.N. Cybercrime Treaty.

Well, it's a big improvement, although as EFF notes, there are still concerns.

Seeing someone digging into Minister Yeşilgöz and discovering other emotionally driven "Won't anyone please think of the children?" arguments which aren't well substantiated, lol.

Child predators have used a minors' personal info to extort those minors before.

Teaching them not to share that (even with a platform) is probably a good idea. It is also, among many reasons, why I dislike FB's link your face to an account model.

I suppose it fits better with the paternalistic mindset (on Apple's part), rather than leaning more on education (and hiding information about yourself whenever is reasonable).

Curious how both Apple and the Q film assume little kids (under 13s) when the age group which is far more likely to be implicated are more of an older sort.

Part of the motivation for this, and what partially led to it, came from them wanting to get this "ugly" aspect of their lives (her existence) out of the public eye.

At the very least, that is what I'm hearing. It's hard to say for sure.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/rosemary-kennedy
Since there is a Kennedy talking a load of rubbish, here's a reminder that the Kennedys destroyed their daughters life, by giving her a lobotomy, because she was apparently, sexually promiscuous.

Since it's Q, obviously this person is part of some sinister conspiracy and is hatching some vile and devious plan.

To any reasonable person though, showing concern here after getting information from people on the ground is... Completely reasonable?

What else are Q activists bringing up.

One is upset that someone apparently brought up an apparent unpleasant truth that minors run away from abusive households and engage in all kinds of activities in order to survive.

What particularly irks them is that conservative views on sexual orientation and other things are blamed for this.

Essentially, they blame them for sex trafficking.

Also, the government apparently just returns them to those very households, when they find them, rather than giving them a safer accommodation.

Hollywood has always kind of been big on censorship on the Internet though, because of copyright. They're kind of notorious for going "Aha, so you filter for this, you should filter for this too".

I can't remember what Kidron did. She might have been a filmmaker, not an actor, actually, but she definitely worked with Weinstein.

Another spirit from Hollywood.

DeSantis worries about the Big Government over-reach from Biden to Big Tech (to be fair, it's not necessarily unreasonable to fret about over-reach here), while simultaneously coercing companies like Disney.

https://reclaimthenet.org/japan-to-deploy-pre-crime-style-behavior-detection-technology I don't think this is necessary to prevent incidents like that. He needed a better security detail.

That said though, maybe it still affords someone a measure of psychological security, when you consider what the Tory Government has been up to for the past few years.

It always made more sense in the U.S. though, because the U.S. actually has meaningful restrictions on the federal government.

Another form of passive Tory lobbying was when a minister and a bunch of Tories went to found "WeProtect".

Then, they started showing up in a few media outlets talking as if they were some independent "charity" who were "concerned" about end-to-end encryption.

I think everyone caught on in the end.

The idea of the IWF was basically taken from the U.S. where the Republicans created a nominally independent but hardly independent "charity" to circumvent the law.