I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control.
The bad people can use encrypted services just like they use guns, even if they are illegal. But then there's a spike in arrests for posting on social media if people express opinions or content contrary to preferred narratives.
Fortunately, there are people exposing NGO money flows and who favors them.Fortunately, the US keeps free speech sacred.
I'm immensely grateful to the founding fathers and their ability to come up with something so helpful so many years down the line
Look, chat control is obviously a mental proposal ä. But the sitting president bans journalists who does not write what he says they have to. How is that keeping free speech sacred?
To me, free speech in the US is sacred because there is a set of rules that shields citizens from being imprisoned simply for expressing their thoughts—otherwise, a huge swath of Bluesky users would already be behind bars...
Can you speak freely in Russia, China, the UK, and beyond like you do in the US? How many people are incarcerated in each of those countries just for saying stuff vs. in the US?
As for the president, you can't control him from pulling every lever to push his agenda, but at least the system allows for accountability.
In the meantime, you can tell as many people as possible what's going on, so that when voters vote again, they can be made aware of contrary information.
It's not a perfect system, but I think it's way better than exposing people to the risk of a crooked elite infiltrating the propaganda and censorship layer and making it impossible for contrary ideas to be shared.
> I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control.
For most of my life, news orgs have been treating national IC/LEO as if they have a history of truth-telling. Whenever a press conference comes up, journalists/editors reliably forget that they've never been told a meaningful truth in one of these.
If the people's who's job it is to highlight the lies of the powerful - usually don't, what hope is there for the proletariat?
I've used them for years. They're likely the most private VPN, but I still can't recommend them. Their IPs are constantly blocked, and with few servers, switching doesn't help (this was already an issue long before I was a customer). Plus, their macOS app has tons of issues.
Huh, I've been pretty happy with them. I live in a country where IPs are often blocked entirely by US and European websites (presumably due to hacking issues and lack of government action). So my major use is being able to access websites.
It's true that servers are flagged, but every VPN has that issue. Usually switching to a new server resolves it and I've noticed some servers aren't use much and are very fast and not flagged by many websites.
What I like about Mullvad is not only the commitment to privacy, but also the VPN speeds. I get 300-500MB/s pretty regularly. Some servers get congested during peak times, but switching to another I'll usually find a fast one in a desirable country very quickly.
I don't think there is a way around the fact that governments will always want at least "lawful intercept" (with warrants) capabilities.
It's a noble fight trying to get E2EE be compatible with the law. But I think some perspective for privacy advocates is due. People don't want freedom and privacy at the cost of their own security. We shouldn't have to choose, but if nothing else, the government has one most important role, and that is not safeguarding freedoms, but ensuring the safety of its people.
No government, no matter how free or wealthy can abdicate its role in securing its people. There must be a solution to fight harmful (not neccesarily illegal) content incorporated into secure messaging solutions. I'm not arguing for backdoors in this post, but even things like Apple's CSAM scanning approach are met with fierce resistance from the privacy advocate community.
This stance that "No, we can't have any solutions, leave E2EE alone" is not a practical stance.
Speaking purely as a citizen, if you're telling me "you will lose civil liberties and democracy, if you let governments reduce cp content", my response would be "what's the hold up?". Even if governments are just using that as an excuse. As someone slightly familiar with the topic, of course I wouldn't want to trade my liberties and freedoms, but is anyone working on a solution? are there working groups? Why did Apple get so much resistance, but there are no opensource solutions?
There are solutions for anonymous payments using homomorphic encryption. Things like Zcash and Monero exist. But you're telling me privacy preserving solutions to combat illicit content are impossible? My problem is with the impossible part. Are there researchers working to make this happen using differential privacy or some other solution? How can I help? Let's talk about solutions.
If your position is that governments (who represent us,voters) should accept the status quo, and just let their people suffer injustice, I don't think I can support that.
Mullvad is also in for a rude awakening. If criminals use Tor or VPNs, those will also face a ban. We need to give governments solutions that lets them do what they claim they want to do (protect the public from victimization) while preserving privacy to avoid a very real dystopia.
Freedoms and liberties must not come at the cost of injustice. And as i argued elsewhere on HN, in the end, ignoring ongoing injustice will result in even less freedoms and liberties. If there was a pluralistic referendum in the EU over chat control, I would be surprised if the result isn't a law that is even far worse than chat control.
EDIT: Here is one idea I had: Sign images/video with hardware-secured chips (camera sensor or GPU?) that is traceable to the device. When images are further processed/edited, then they will be subject to differential-privacy scanning. This can also combat deepfakes, if image authenticity can be proven by the device that took the image.
Thanks for the reply, but you are exactly the audience my post is for. Because you say that, we will lose what little figments of privacy and freedoms we have left.
Apple tried and made good progress. They had bugs which could be resolved but your insistence that it couldn't be done caused too much of an uproar.
You can have a system that flags illicit content with some confidence level and have a human review that content. You can make any model or heuristic used is publicly logged and audited. You can anonymously flag that content to reviewers, and when deemed as actually illicit by a human, the hash or some other signature of the content can be published globally to reveal the devices and owners of those devices. You can presume innocence (such as a parent taking a pic of their kids bathing) and question suspects discretely without an arrest. You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.
These are just some of the things that are possible that I came up with in the last minute of typing this post. Better and more well thought out solutions can be developed if taken seriously and funded well.
However, your response of "Yes." is materially false, law makers will catch on to that and discredit anything the privacy community has been advocating. Even simple heuristics that isn't using ML models can have a higher "true positive" rate of identifying criminal activity than eye witness testimony, which is used to convict people of serious crimes. And I suspect, you meant security, not privacy. Because as I mentioned, for privacy, humans can review before a decision is made to search for the confirmed content across devices.
> Because you say that, we will lose what little figments of privacy and freedoms we have left.
I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.
> You can have a system that flags illicit content with some confidence level and have a human review that content. You can make any model or heuristic used is publicly logged and audited. You can anonymously flag that content to reviewers, and when deemed as actually illicit by a human, the hash or some other signature of the content can be published globally to reveal the devices and owners of those devices. You can presume innocence (such as a parent taking a pic of their kids bathing) and question suspects discretely without an arrest. You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.
What about this is privacy preserving?
> However, your response of "Yes." is materially false, law makers will catch on to that and discredit anything the privacy community has been advocating. Even simple heuristics that isn't using ML models can have a higher "true positive" rate of identifying criminal activity than eye witness testimony, which is used to convict people of serious crimes. And I suspect, you meant security, not privacy. Because as I mentioned, for privacy, humans can review before a decision is made to search for the confirmed content across devices.
It's not "materially false." Bringing a human into the picture doesn't do anything to preserve privacy. If, like in your example, a parent's family photos with their children flag the system, you have already violated the person's privacy without just cause, regardless of whether the people reviewing it can identify the person or not.
You cannot have a system that is scanning everyone's stuff indiscriminately and have it not be a violation of privacy. There is a reason why there is a process where law enforcement must get permission from the courts to search and/or surveil suspects - it is supposed to be a protection against abuse.
> I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.
You have an ideological approach instead of a practical one. It isn't governments that are demanding it. I am demanding it of our government, I and the majority. I don't want freedoms paid for by such intolerable and abhorrent levels of ongoing injustice. It isn't a false sense of security, for the victims it is very real. Most criminals are not sophisticated. Crime prevention is always about making it difficult to do crime, not waving a magic wand and making crime go away. I'm not saying let's give up freedoms, but if your stance is there is no other way, then freedoms have to go away. But my stance is that the technology is there, it's just slippery slope fallacy thinking that's preventing from getting it implemented.
> What about this is privacy preserving?
Persons aren't identified before a human reviews and confirms that the material is illicit.
You have to identify yourself to the government to drive and place a license plate connected to you at all times on your car. You have to id yourself in most countries to get a mobile phone sim card, or open a bank account. Dragnet surveillance is what I agree is unacceptable except as a last resort, it isn't dragnet if algorithms flag it first, and it isn't privacy invading if false hits are never associated with individuals.
> you have already violated the person's privacy without just cause, regardless of whether the people reviewing it can identify the person or not.
There is just cause, the material was flagged as illicit. In legal terms, it is called probable cause. If a cop hears what sounds like a gunshot in your home, he doesn't need a warrant, he can break in immediately and investigate because it counts as extenuating circumstance. The algorithms flagging content are the gunshots in this case. You could be naked in your house and it will be a violation of privacy, but acceptable by law. If you said after review, they should get a warrant from a judge I'm all for it.
It is materially false, because that the scanning can be done without sending a single byte of the device. The privacy intrusion happens not at the time of scanning, but at the time of verification. To continue my example, the cop could have heard you playing with firecrackers, you didn't do anything wrong but your door is now broken and you were probably naked too, which means privacy violated. This is acceptable by society already.
The false positive rates for cops seeing/hearing things, and for eyewitness testimony is very high in case you're not aware. by comparison, apples csam scanner was very low.
> There is a reason why there is a process where law enforcement must get permission from the courts to search and/or surveil suspects
As stated above, so long as the scanning is happening strictly on-device, you're not being surveilled. When there is a hit, humans can review the probable cause, a judge can issue a warrant for your arrest or a search warrant to access your device.
Another solution might be to scan only at transmission time of the content, not capture and storage (still not good enough, but this is the sort of conversation we need, not plugging in of ears).
Let's take a step back. Another solution might be to restrict every content publishing on the internet to people positively identifying themselves.
> You have an ideological approach instead of a practical one.
It's both. We can save a whole lot of time and money not wasting resources on security theater and reallocate it towards efforts that actually make society better and safer.
> It isn't governments that are demanding it. I am demanding it of our government, I and the majority.
> I don't want freedoms paid for by such intolerable and abhorrent levels of ongoing injustice. It isn't a false sense of security, for the victims it is very real.
No, it still is a very false sense of security. Intercepting illicit material online doesn't actually stop the crime from being committed nor does it dissuade people from distributing it.
> Most criminals are not sophisticated. Crime prevention is always about making it difficult to do crime, not waving a magic wand and making crime go away.
Sure, but the 'criminals' that are distributing illicit material online are already going to lengths, sometimes very technical, to distribute it anonymously.
> I'm not saying let's give up freedoms, but if your stance is there is no other way, then freedoms have to go away.
You are saying let's give up freedoms. Let's drop any sort of notion that you care about freedom because you do not. I'm not saying that it's an invalid world view; your reasoning for wanting to eradicate those freedoms is rational and with good intention, but you are begging for authoritarianism none the less.
I don't think there's any sort of agreement to be had here. Fundamentally I cannot agree with the notion that everyone must concede their personal liberties and privacy in order to capture a few more stupid criminals.
> But my stance is that the technology is there, it's just slippery slope fallacy thinking that's preventing from getting it implemented.
No, it's actually just a slipper slope. There is no fallaciousness in the logic here because we've already witnessed the erosion of our rights for this purpose over and over again and they continue to push for even more degradation of those rights.
> Persons aren't identified before a human reviews and confirms that the material is illicit.
This is already a violation of privacy. Share all of your personal photos with hacker news if you disagree. We don't know who you are, after all, so it's not a violation of your privacy, right?
> There is just cause, the material was flagged as illicit. In legal terms, it is called probable cause. If a cop hears what sounds like a gunshot in your home, he doesn't need a warrant, he can break in immediately and investigate because it counts as extenuating circumstance. The algorithms flagging content are the gunshots in this case. You could be naked in your house and it will be a violation of privacy, but acceptable by law. If you said after review, they should get a warrant from a judge I'm all for it.
In legal terms, probable cause is what you need to make an arrest or before obtaining a search warrant. The "gunshot" exception isn't probable cause. It's an emergency exception that allows for a warrantless search because there is an independent, externally observable signal of imminent harm i.e. an emergency situation.
The algorithms are not the 'gunshot' here. It is not searching in response to some sort of external signal like a gunshot or hearing someone screaming or even seeing someone getting attacked. It is the search itself - it only produces a flag marking someone as suspicious because it has already examined someone's private files. The "probable cause" was produced by conducting the search. That is backwards.
It is equivalent, in your analogy, to a cop opening every front door in the neighborhood to look inside and then saying they now have probable cause because they saw something suspicious. The search already happened.
> It is materially false, because that the scanning can be done without sending a single byte of the device. The privacy intrusion happens not at the time of scanning, but at the time of verification.
You do not need to transmit information for it to be violation of privacy. If a cop opens your filing cabinet, looks through your folders, and leaves everything exactly where he found it, he's still already intruded by examining your private material.
The suspicion of criminal activity must precede the search. Simply possessing digital files isn't a basis for individual suspicion - you are treating everyone as a suspect that deserves no protection.
> To continue my example, the cop could have heard you playing with firecrackers, you didn't do anything wrong but your door is now broken and you were probably naked too, which means privacy violated. This is acceptable by society already.
Society accepts warrantless entry only when there is an actual emergency - The reason a gunshot or firecrackers can justify it is because they are external signals - they do not require the police officer to enter the home in order to detect it.
Society does not accept random entries just to look for problems.
And just to get ahead of it, a machine performing the search doesn’t change anything. A search is defined by what’s being examined, not who (or what) is doing the examining. If the government sent a robot into your home that didn’t know your name and only alerted authorities if it found something illegal, it would still be a search. The fact that it’s automated doesn’t make it any less of an intrusion.
Let me post a longer reply later. But for your last point, we do have automated machine generated alarms in form of smoke detectors. We're legally required to have them in our homes. Firefighters might do the breaking in though, instead of cops, but still agents of the government. Is it more accurate to treat internet access, same as public road access? it's a regulated privileged, instead of a right. You can't taint your windows too much so cops can look in for example when driving on public roads.
With this logic, you could justify embedding cameras in every private space of someone’s home. The feed could be sent to a server running an automatic algorithm that flags potential crimes. If something suspicious appears, authorities would be alerted and an independent review would determine whether a crime occurred.
I have no doubt in my mind if we did that it would certainly be a huge win for law enforcement, detecting crimes and gathering evidence to help catch criminals.
Why stop there, though? Why not require everyone live in glass apartments like in the novel We?
These aren't big leaps from what you're proposing. You are advocating for mass surveillance with the assumption that these systems won't be abused despite countless examples of surveillance being misused by those in power.
Comparing scanning all of someone's digital files to smoke detectors is absurd.
You have a good point, but is a phone equal to your private home, or is it similar to a car (where you are required to have transparent glass windows). Is it a right or a privilege?
But to challenge your argument further, if the majority are fine with having cameras in their homes that don't transmit unless a crime is detected, isn't that just democracy?
What's getting lost in this discussion might be the fact that the majority of people don't care that much about privacy, especially when heinous crimes are involved. Furthermore, the equivalent would be house builders installing cameras in homes, not home owners being required to install one. But a reasonable compromise might be scanning content being transmitted instead of stored?
> You have a good point, but is a phone equal to your private home, or is it similar to a car (where you are required to have transparent glass windows). Is it a right or a privilege?
We regulate the operation of motor vehicles because they pose an immediate safety risk. As in, the use of one could reasonably result in injury or death. A phone is not something you could reasonably expect to be used to create immediate harm (injury, death) and you wouldn't regulate one as such. That's not to say that aspects of it can't be regulated, but the fact that it can be a tool used to generate harm does not make it itself particularly dangerous.
> But to challenge your argument further, if the majority are fine with having cameras in their homes that don't transmit unless a crime is detected, isn't that just democracy?
Yes, which is why we avoid direct democracy pretty much everywhere in the world. But rights aren't something that can be taken away by a vote. Only protections against a government violating your rights can. If you could vote away your rights then pretty much every authoritarian government would be wholly justified in their abusive actions.
> What's getting lost in this discussion might be the fact that the majority of people don't care that much about privacy, especially when heinous crimes are involved. Furthermore, the equivalent would be house builders installing cameras in homes, not home owners being required to install one. But a reasonable compromise might be scanning content being transmitted instead of stored?
Most people don't care about a lot of things. That's another reason why we don't have most people writing legislation. There are tons of things I have extremely limited knowledge about that someone else feels very strongly about and vice versa. The majority of people feeling apathetic towards something isn't an indicator that the majority is correct.
> We regulate the operation of motor vehicles because they pose an immediate safety risk.
That's not the legal reasoning as i recall. it is because they use public roads. They are just as unsafe when you drive them in a racing circuit or on your ranch, but traffic laws only apply on public roads. Same with your post mail being scanned and searched, or your baggage at airlines, it isn't just for safety and no warrant is needed, they look for contrabands,customs violations,etc.. too. It is because you are engaging in a privileged activity.
> Yes, which is why we avoid direct democracy pretty much everywhere in the world.
News to me, i thought it was because of practicality. I think you mean pluralistic?
> If you could vote away your rights then pretty much every authoritarian government would be wholly justified in their abusive actions.
Maybe a clear definition of digital rights is what is missing? But explain to me why your right to privacy is more important than the rights of victims. If victimization was rare, that would be one argument, but it is frequent, and something can be done to reduce it. From what I understand, the scanning methods Apple proposed are differential, your privacy won't be violated unless there is a match.
Going back to my earlier point, you have rights. But those rights can only be protected by the government so long as the security of its people remains in tact. Every right we have is taken way when it comes to "national security risk" for example. Is a potential terrorist attack any worse in terms of security compared to the very real impact of CSAM against the most innocent members of society? If there was a terrorist attack impending and the only way to stop it is by scanning everyone's phones, guess what? it is already the law that the government can do that.
> Most people don't care about a lot of things. That's another reason why we don't have most people writing legislation. There are tons of things I have extremely limited knowledge about that someone else feels very strongly about and vice versa. The majority of people feeling apathetic towards something isn't an indicator that the majority is correct.
They don't write legislation, but they determine what legislation gets written. They vote based on promises of legislation, they may not care about details but they care about outcomes. In this case "not caring" is for that, outcomes, not the technicalities of legislation. As a matter of policy the voters don't care. And law makers have a duty to reflect the sentiment of their constituents.
Even it comes down to taking away the rights of the minority voters, it may not be as simple legislation, but constitutional amendments exist and it all comes down to how many people want that change. We could literally have something insane like slavery back again within a year given enough popular sentiment.
The patriot act has been getting renewed since its inception, now almost a quarter of a century ago, across multiple administrations, and with bi-partisan support. that is the will of the people in effect.
Except that it is not materially false. Only in a perfect society will your “system that flags illicit content” not become a system that flags whatever some authoritarian regime considers threatening, and subverting public logging/auditing is similarly trivial to a motivated authoritarian. All your hypothetical solutions rely on humans, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by either money or being beaten with pipes, and on corporations, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by things that influence their stock price.
The Pleyel’s corollary to Murphy’s law is that all compromises to individuals’ rights made for the sake of security will eventually be used to further deprive them of those rights.
(I especially liked the line “You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.”)
This is already the case with other means of communication. the internet isn't that special. If you don't trust your government, do something else about it.
We rely on eye witness testimony and human juries all the time. The innocence project has a long list of people that spent decades in prison because of this.
The solution to authoritarian regimes is to not have one, not tolerate cp on the internet.
> The solution to authoritarian regimes is to not have one
The solution to not being poor is being rich. You could apply that logic to a lot of things. Have this thing instead of that thing. Using your example above of "differential privacy scanning"
Differential privacy is a property of a dataset meaning you can’t tell an individual was part of a dataset. If it’s traceable back to the individual device it’s not differentially private.
I think at this point you're just trying to say "don't have this thing have that thing instead" as a response to anything.
For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.
> For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.
Except it doesn't work like that in practice. It would be nice if it did. Often a person can be found guilty simply by jury in a trial based on what they think a person might have done. That's reality, and it is the case in western would countries not some obscure dictatorship.
> There are solutions for anonymous payments using homomorphic encryption. Things like Zcash and Monero exist.
The main problem is there are no products that solve the problem Chat Control aims to solve without infringing massively on everyone's privacy, (including children). Any suggestions that do exist come with serious risks or have complexities, eg homomorphic encryption is a generally new area that has expensive computational requirements.
The reason for that is because it's easier to encrypt data than develop some kind of system with a magical key only authorized people are able to use under certain circumstances.
What Mullvad highlights is that the whole chat control proposal is mired in corruption. A particular individual with an agenda to sell something has adjacent financial interests to being part of the solution. No doubt they will want funding for "research", because they don't actually have a solution everyone can use. They try to make it appear as if they do (grift) to get the politicians on board. Then there's a harassment campaign component (specifically the EU Survivors Taskforce) portion which aims to apply public emotional pressure on any remaining politicians who have concerns.
In the end everyone else (companies, developers etc) will have to do the heavy lifting to try to find some way to comply by their legal interpretation with whatever vague brain fart is passed into law.
Make no mistake about it, this proposal has nothing to do with child protection but rather is all about demonizing the use of encryption. Law enforcement would love to be able to simply argue the presence of encryption means there is likely to be offending. This is why they fight so hard in the UK in regard to Apple having default encryption on ADP. You can't make the argument to a court owning an iPhone means you're a criminal for instance.
The end game, and goal post movement will simply be to argue they used non-compliant software/products. If they do have something on the person then this will be used to argue that further offenses were likely concealed, (even if that is not the case) and they went to effort to do so (premeditation). It's a gift that keeps giving all along the trial process.
> EDIT: Here is one idea I had: Sign images/video with hardware-secured chips (camera sensor or GPU?) that is traceable to the device. When images are further processed/edited, then they will be subject to differential-privacy scanning. This can also combat deepfakes, if image authenticity can be proven by the device that took the image.
And there obviously will be totally like no way to like not do that and then have an anonymous photo. What are you going to do, confiscate all the computers, phones and cameras that already exist and don't have this special "hardware secure chip". Honestly at this point I think you're a troll.
> If your position is that governments (who represent us,voters) should accept the status quo, and just let their people suffer injustice, I don't think I can support that.
Things can be always worse, and you shouldn't assume that the powers that be will use these things to prosecute the things you find morally offensive. Which is another problem as well.
> Mullvad is also in for a rude awakening. If criminals use Tor or VPNs, those will also face a ban. We need to give governments solutions that lets them do what they claim they want to do (protect the public from victimization) while preserving privacy to avoid a very real dystopia.
The space will innovate regardless of what governments want, so that's the rude awakening. Criminals always will be criminals and they'll just get better at doing what they want to do regardless.
> Freedoms and liberties must not come at the cost of injustice. And as i argued elsewhere on HN, in the end, ignoring ongoing injustice will result in even less freedoms and liberties. If there was a pluralistic referendum in the EU over chat control, I would be surprised if the result isn't a law that is even far worse than chat control.
Okay then guess we can all "think of the children" whenever anyone is worrying about the injustice caused by abuse of these new powers.
> I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.
Placation of government and law enforcement is never complete. For them every goal post moved is perceived as making their job easier. They only have one job, and that's to convict people of things. That is the only metric they care about. That includes making up new offences to charge people with, including "the defendant used non compliant products to hide their offending which may or may not exist" - not a crime in the EU right now, but you can bet that will be the next step if people refuse to use compliant products.
> Let me post a longer reply later. But for your last point, we do have automated machine generated alarms in form of smoke detectors. We're legally required to have them in our homes.
A smoke alarm has very little room for abuse as it only does one thing which largely aligns with the occupant's interests. A more comparable argument would be that you must have cameras in every room in your house to record burglars, home invaders and potential child abductors. We need not look any further than the abuse of door bell cameras in the US to see how that plays out.
I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control.
The bad people can use encrypted services just like they use guns, even if they are illegal. But then there's a spike in arrests for posting on social media if people express opinions or content contrary to preferred narratives.
Fortunately, there are people exposing NGO money flows and who favors them.Fortunately, the US keeps free speech sacred.
I'm immensely grateful to the founding fathers and their ability to come up with something so helpful so many years down the line
Look, chat control is obviously a mental proposal ä. But the sitting president bans journalists who does not write what he says they have to. How is that keeping free speech sacred?
To me, free speech in the US is sacred because there is a set of rules that shields citizens from being imprisoned simply for expressing their thoughts—otherwise, a huge swath of Bluesky users would already be behind bars...
Can you speak freely in Russia, China, the UK, and beyond like you do in the US? How many people are incarcerated in each of those countries just for saying stuff vs. in the US?
As for the president, you can't control him from pulling every lever to push his agenda, but at least the system allows for accountability.
In the meantime, you can tell as many people as possible what's going on, so that when voters vote again, they can be made aware of contrary information.
It's not a perfect system, but I think it's way better than exposing people to the risk of a crooked elite infiltrating the propaganda and censorship layer and making it impossible for contrary ideas to be shared.
> I wonder how many people actually believe this is for the kids and not for population control.
For most of my life, news orgs have been treating national IC/LEO as if they have a history of truth-telling. Whenever a press conference comes up, journalists/editors reliably forget that they've never been told a meaningful truth in one of these.
If the people's who's job it is to highlight the lies of the powerful - usually don't, what hope is there for the proletariat?
For months, Mullvad has been papering San Francisco with smart and cheeky ads, like "Mass surveillance is made by machine men with machine hearts".
I admire that they're saying this, and wish other VPN companies would do similar public relations to highlight the risks of ad targeting.
Tbh, I'm a customer. Before Mullvad, I used PIA.
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/advertising-that-targets-everyon...
Same. Switched off PIA when they were bought by Malware vendors Kape
I've used them for years. They're likely the most private VPN, but I still can't recommend them. Their IPs are constantly blocked, and with few servers, switching doesn't help (this was already an issue long before I was a customer). Plus, their macOS app has tons of issues.
Huh, I've been pretty happy with them. I live in a country where IPs are often blocked entirely by US and European websites (presumably due to hacking issues and lack of government action). So my major use is being able to access websites.
It's true that servers are flagged, but every VPN has that issue. Usually switching to a new server resolves it and I've noticed some servers aren't use much and are very fast and not flagged by many websites.
What I like about Mullvad is not only the commitment to privacy, but also the VPN speeds. I get 300-500MB/s pretty regularly. Some servers get congested during peak times, but switching to another I'll usually find a fast one in a desirable country very quickly.
> They're likely the most private VPN, but I still can't recommend them. Their IPs are constantly blocked
Every VPN provider's IPs are blocked now. IP data providers finally got serious about identifying them, 5 or 10 years back.
If you want to look for alternatives: https://kumu.io/embed/9ced55e897e74fd807be51990b26b415#vpn-c...
I don't think there is a way around the fact that governments will always want at least "lawful intercept" (with warrants) capabilities.
It's a noble fight trying to get E2EE be compatible with the law. But I think some perspective for privacy advocates is due. People don't want freedom and privacy at the cost of their own security. We shouldn't have to choose, but if nothing else, the government has one most important role, and that is not safeguarding freedoms, but ensuring the safety of its people.
No government, no matter how free or wealthy can abdicate its role in securing its people. There must be a solution to fight harmful (not neccesarily illegal) content incorporated into secure messaging solutions. I'm not arguing for backdoors in this post, but even things like Apple's CSAM scanning approach are met with fierce resistance from the privacy advocate community.
This stance that "No, we can't have any solutions, leave E2EE alone" is not a practical stance.
Speaking purely as a citizen, if you're telling me "you will lose civil liberties and democracy, if you let governments reduce cp content", my response would be "what's the hold up?". Even if governments are just using that as an excuse. As someone slightly familiar with the topic, of course I wouldn't want to trade my liberties and freedoms, but is anyone working on a solution? are there working groups? Why did Apple get so much resistance, but there are no opensource solutions?
There are solutions for anonymous payments using homomorphic encryption. Things like Zcash and Monero exist. But you're telling me privacy preserving solutions to combat illicit content are impossible? My problem is with the impossible part. Are there researchers working to make this happen using differential privacy or some other solution? How can I help? Let's talk about solutions.
If your position is that governments (who represent us,voters) should accept the status quo, and just let their people suffer injustice, I don't think I can support that.
Mullvad is also in for a rude awakening. If criminals use Tor or VPNs, those will also face a ban. We need to give governments solutions that lets them do what they claim they want to do (protect the public from victimization) while preserving privacy to avoid a very real dystopia.
Freedoms and liberties must not come at the cost of injustice. And as i argued elsewhere on HN, in the end, ignoring ongoing injustice will result in even less freedoms and liberties. If there was a pluralistic referendum in the EU over chat control, I would be surprised if the result isn't a law that is even far worse than chat control.
EDIT: Here is one idea I had: Sign images/video with hardware-secured chips (camera sensor or GPU?) that is traceable to the device. When images are further processed/edited, then they will be subject to differential-privacy scanning. This can also combat deepfakes, if image authenticity can be proven by the device that took the image.
> But you're telling me privacy preserving solutions to combat illicit content are impossible?
Yes. You cannot have a system that positively associates illicit content with an owner while preserving privacy.
Thanks for the reply, but you are exactly the audience my post is for. Because you say that, we will lose what little figments of privacy and freedoms we have left.
Apple tried and made good progress. They had bugs which could be resolved but your insistence that it couldn't be done caused too much of an uproar.
You can have a system that flags illicit content with some confidence level and have a human review that content. You can make any model or heuristic used is publicly logged and audited. You can anonymously flag that content to reviewers, and when deemed as actually illicit by a human, the hash or some other signature of the content can be published globally to reveal the devices and owners of those devices. You can presume innocence (such as a parent taking a pic of their kids bathing) and question suspects discretely without an arrest. You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.
These are just some of the things that are possible that I came up with in the last minute of typing this post. Better and more well thought out solutions can be developed if taken seriously and funded well.
However, your response of "Yes." is materially false, law makers will catch on to that and discredit anything the privacy community has been advocating. Even simple heuristics that isn't using ML models can have a higher "true positive" rate of identifying criminal activity than eye witness testimony, which is used to convict people of serious crimes. And I suspect, you meant security, not privacy. Because as I mentioned, for privacy, humans can review before a decision is made to search for the confirmed content across devices.
> Because you say that, we will lose what little figments of privacy and freedoms we have left.
I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.
> You can have a system that flags illicit content with some confidence level and have a human review that content. You can make any model or heuristic used is publicly logged and audited. You can anonymously flag that content to reviewers, and when deemed as actually illicit by a human, the hash or some other signature of the content can be published globally to reveal the devices and owners of those devices. You can presume innocence (such as a parent taking a pic of their kids bathing) and question suspects discretely without an arrest. You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.
What about this is privacy preserving?
> However, your response of "Yes." is materially false, law makers will catch on to that and discredit anything the privacy community has been advocating. Even simple heuristics that isn't using ML models can have a higher "true positive" rate of identifying criminal activity than eye witness testimony, which is used to convict people of serious crimes. And I suspect, you meant security, not privacy. Because as I mentioned, for privacy, humans can review before a decision is made to search for the confirmed content across devices.
It's not "materially false." Bringing a human into the picture doesn't do anything to preserve privacy. If, like in your example, a parent's family photos with their children flag the system, you have already violated the person's privacy without just cause, regardless of whether the people reviewing it can identify the person or not.
You cannot have a system that is scanning everyone's stuff indiscriminately and have it not be a violation of privacy. There is a reason why there is a process where law enforcement must get permission from the courts to search and/or surveil suspects - it is supposed to be a protection against abuse.
> I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.
You have an ideological approach instead of a practical one. It isn't governments that are demanding it. I am demanding it of our government, I and the majority. I don't want freedoms paid for by such intolerable and abhorrent levels of ongoing injustice. It isn't a false sense of security, for the victims it is very real. Most criminals are not sophisticated. Crime prevention is always about making it difficult to do crime, not waving a magic wand and making crime go away. I'm not saying let's give up freedoms, but if your stance is there is no other way, then freedoms have to go away. But my stance is that the technology is there, it's just slippery slope fallacy thinking that's preventing from getting it implemented.
> What about this is privacy preserving?
Persons aren't identified before a human reviews and confirms that the material is illicit.
You have to identify yourself to the government to drive and place a license plate connected to you at all times on your car. You have to id yourself in most countries to get a mobile phone sim card, or open a bank account. Dragnet surveillance is what I agree is unacceptable except as a last resort, it isn't dragnet if algorithms flag it first, and it isn't privacy invading if false hits are never associated with individuals.
> you have already violated the person's privacy without just cause, regardless of whether the people reviewing it can identify the person or not.
There is just cause, the material was flagged as illicit. In legal terms, it is called probable cause. If a cop hears what sounds like a gunshot in your home, he doesn't need a warrant, he can break in immediately and investigate because it counts as extenuating circumstance. The algorithms flagging content are the gunshots in this case. You could be naked in your house and it will be a violation of privacy, but acceptable by law. If you said after review, they should get a warrant from a judge I'm all for it.
It is materially false, because that the scanning can be done without sending a single byte of the device. The privacy intrusion happens not at the time of scanning, but at the time of verification. To continue my example, the cop could have heard you playing with firecrackers, you didn't do anything wrong but your door is now broken and you were probably naked too, which means privacy violated. This is acceptable by society already.
The false positive rates for cops seeing/hearing things, and for eyewitness testimony is very high in case you're not aware. by comparison, apples csam scanner was very low.
> There is a reason why there is a process where law enforcement must get permission from the courts to search and/or surveil suspects
As stated above, so long as the scanning is happening strictly on-device, you're not being surveilled. When there is a hit, humans can review the probable cause, a judge can issue a warrant for your arrest or a search warrant to access your device.
Another solution might be to scan only at transmission time of the content, not capture and storage (still not good enough, but this is the sort of conversation we need, not plugging in of ears).
Let's take a step back. Another solution might be to restrict every content publishing on the internet to people positively identifying themselves.
> You have an ideological approach instead of a practical one.
It's both. We can save a whole lot of time and money not wasting resources on security theater and reallocate it towards efforts that actually make society better and safer.
> It isn't governments that are demanding it. I am demanding it of our government, I and the majority.
> I don't want freedoms paid for by such intolerable and abhorrent levels of ongoing injustice. It isn't a false sense of security, for the victims it is very real.
No, it still is a very false sense of security. Intercepting illicit material online doesn't actually stop the crime from being committed nor does it dissuade people from distributing it.
> Most criminals are not sophisticated. Crime prevention is always about making it difficult to do crime, not waving a magic wand and making crime go away.
Sure, but the 'criminals' that are distributing illicit material online are already going to lengths, sometimes very technical, to distribute it anonymously.
> I'm not saying let's give up freedoms, but if your stance is there is no other way, then freedoms have to go away.
You are saying let's give up freedoms. Let's drop any sort of notion that you care about freedom because you do not. I'm not saying that it's an invalid world view; your reasoning for wanting to eradicate those freedoms is rational and with good intention, but you are begging for authoritarianism none the less.
I don't think there's any sort of agreement to be had here. Fundamentally I cannot agree with the notion that everyone must concede their personal liberties and privacy in order to capture a few more stupid criminals.
> But my stance is that the technology is there, it's just slippery slope fallacy thinking that's preventing from getting it implemented.
No, it's actually just a slipper slope. There is no fallaciousness in the logic here because we've already witnessed the erosion of our rights for this purpose over and over again and they continue to push for even more degradation of those rights.
> Persons aren't identified before a human reviews and confirms that the material is illicit.
This is already a violation of privacy. Share all of your personal photos with hacker news if you disagree. We don't know who you are, after all, so it's not a violation of your privacy, right?
> There is just cause, the material was flagged as illicit. In legal terms, it is called probable cause. If a cop hears what sounds like a gunshot in your home, he doesn't need a warrant, he can break in immediately and investigate because it counts as extenuating circumstance. The algorithms flagging content are the gunshots in this case. You could be naked in your house and it will be a violation of privacy, but acceptable by law. If you said after review, they should get a warrant from a judge I'm all for it.
In legal terms, probable cause is what you need to make an arrest or before obtaining a search warrant. The "gunshot" exception isn't probable cause. It's an emergency exception that allows for a warrantless search because there is an independent, externally observable signal of imminent harm i.e. an emergency situation.
The algorithms are not the 'gunshot' here. It is not searching in response to some sort of external signal like a gunshot or hearing someone screaming or even seeing someone getting attacked. It is the search itself - it only produces a flag marking someone as suspicious because it has already examined someone's private files. The "probable cause" was produced by conducting the search. That is backwards.
It is equivalent, in your analogy, to a cop opening every front door in the neighborhood to look inside and then saying they now have probable cause because they saw something suspicious. The search already happened.
> It is materially false, because that the scanning can be done without sending a single byte of the device. The privacy intrusion happens not at the time of scanning, but at the time of verification.
You do not need to transmit information for it to be violation of privacy. If a cop opens your filing cabinet, looks through your folders, and leaves everything exactly where he found it, he's still already intruded by examining your private material.
The suspicion of criminal activity must precede the search. Simply possessing digital files isn't a basis for individual suspicion - you are treating everyone as a suspect that deserves no protection.
> To continue my example, the cop could have heard you playing with firecrackers, you didn't do anything wrong but your door is now broken and you were probably naked too, which means privacy violated. This is acceptable by society already.
Society accepts warrantless entry only when there is an actual emergency - The reason a gunshot or firecrackers can justify it is because they are external signals - they do not require the police officer to enter the home in order to detect it.
Society does not accept random entries just to look for problems.
And just to get ahead of it, a machine performing the search doesn’t change anything. A search is defined by what’s being examined, not who (or what) is doing the examining. If the government sent a robot into your home that didn’t know your name and only alerted authorities if it found something illegal, it would still be a search. The fact that it’s automated doesn’t make it any less of an intrusion.
Let me post a longer reply later. But for your last point, we do have automated machine generated alarms in form of smoke detectors. We're legally required to have them in our homes. Firefighters might do the breaking in though, instead of cops, but still agents of the government. Is it more accurate to treat internet access, same as public road access? it's a regulated privileged, instead of a right. You can't taint your windows too much so cops can look in for example when driving on public roads.
With this logic, you could justify embedding cameras in every private space of someone’s home. The feed could be sent to a server running an automatic algorithm that flags potential crimes. If something suspicious appears, authorities would be alerted and an independent review would determine whether a crime occurred.
I have no doubt in my mind if we did that it would certainly be a huge win for law enforcement, detecting crimes and gathering evidence to help catch criminals. Why stop there, though? Why not require everyone live in glass apartments like in the novel We?
These aren't big leaps from what you're proposing. You are advocating for mass surveillance with the assumption that these systems won't be abused despite countless examples of surveillance being misused by those in power.
Comparing scanning all of someone's digital files to smoke detectors is absurd.
You have a good point, but is a phone equal to your private home, or is it similar to a car (where you are required to have transparent glass windows). Is it a right or a privilege?
But to challenge your argument further, if the majority are fine with having cameras in their homes that don't transmit unless a crime is detected, isn't that just democracy?
What's getting lost in this discussion might be the fact that the majority of people don't care that much about privacy, especially when heinous crimes are involved. Furthermore, the equivalent would be house builders installing cameras in homes, not home owners being required to install one. But a reasonable compromise might be scanning content being transmitted instead of stored?
> You have a good point, but is a phone equal to your private home, or is it similar to a car (where you are required to have transparent glass windows). Is it a right or a privilege?
We regulate the operation of motor vehicles because they pose an immediate safety risk. As in, the use of one could reasonably result in injury or death. A phone is not something you could reasonably expect to be used to create immediate harm (injury, death) and you wouldn't regulate one as such. That's not to say that aspects of it can't be regulated, but the fact that it can be a tool used to generate harm does not make it itself particularly dangerous.
> But to challenge your argument further, if the majority are fine with having cameras in their homes that don't transmit unless a crime is detected, isn't that just democracy?
Yes, which is why we avoid direct democracy pretty much everywhere in the world. But rights aren't something that can be taken away by a vote. Only protections against a government violating your rights can. If you could vote away your rights then pretty much every authoritarian government would be wholly justified in their abusive actions.
> What's getting lost in this discussion might be the fact that the majority of people don't care that much about privacy, especially when heinous crimes are involved. Furthermore, the equivalent would be house builders installing cameras in homes, not home owners being required to install one. But a reasonable compromise might be scanning content being transmitted instead of stored?
Most people don't care about a lot of things. That's another reason why we don't have most people writing legislation. There are tons of things I have extremely limited knowledge about that someone else feels very strongly about and vice versa. The majority of people feeling apathetic towards something isn't an indicator that the majority is correct.
> We regulate the operation of motor vehicles because they pose an immediate safety risk.
That's not the legal reasoning as i recall. it is because they use public roads. They are just as unsafe when you drive them in a racing circuit or on your ranch, but traffic laws only apply on public roads. Same with your post mail being scanned and searched, or your baggage at airlines, it isn't just for safety and no warrant is needed, they look for contrabands,customs violations,etc.. too. It is because you are engaging in a privileged activity.
> Yes, which is why we avoid direct democracy pretty much everywhere in the world.
News to me, i thought it was because of practicality. I think you mean pluralistic?
> If you could vote away your rights then pretty much every authoritarian government would be wholly justified in their abusive actions.
Maybe a clear definition of digital rights is what is missing? But explain to me why your right to privacy is more important than the rights of victims. If victimization was rare, that would be one argument, but it is frequent, and something can be done to reduce it. From what I understand, the scanning methods Apple proposed are differential, your privacy won't be violated unless there is a match.
Going back to my earlier point, you have rights. But those rights can only be protected by the government so long as the security of its people remains in tact. Every right we have is taken way when it comes to "national security risk" for example. Is a potential terrorist attack any worse in terms of security compared to the very real impact of CSAM against the most innocent members of society? If there was a terrorist attack impending and the only way to stop it is by scanning everyone's phones, guess what? it is already the law that the government can do that.
> Most people don't care about a lot of things. That's another reason why we don't have most people writing legislation. There are tons of things I have extremely limited knowledge about that someone else feels very strongly about and vice versa. The majority of people feeling apathetic towards something isn't an indicator that the majority is correct.
They don't write legislation, but they determine what legislation gets written. They vote based on promises of legislation, they may not care about details but they care about outcomes. In this case "not caring" is for that, outcomes, not the technicalities of legislation. As a matter of policy the voters don't care. And law makers have a duty to reflect the sentiment of their constituents.
Even it comes down to taking away the rights of the minority voters, it may not be as simple legislation, but constitutional amendments exist and it all comes down to how many people want that change. We could literally have something insane like slavery back again within a year given enough popular sentiment.
The patriot act has been getting renewed since its inception, now almost a quarter of a century ago, across multiple administrations, and with bi-partisan support. that is the will of the people in effect.
Except that it is not materially false. Only in a perfect society will your “system that flags illicit content” not become a system that flags whatever some authoritarian regime considers threatening, and subverting public logging/auditing is similarly trivial to a motivated authoritarian. All your hypothetical solutions rely on humans, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by either money or being beaten with pipes, and on corporations, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by things that influence their stock price.
The Pleyel’s corollary to Murphy’s law is that all compromises to individuals’ rights made for the sake of security will eventually be used to further deprive them of those rights.
(I especially liked the line “You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.”)
This is already the case with other means of communication. the internet isn't that special. If you don't trust your government, do something else about it.
We rely on eye witness testimony and human juries all the time. The innocence project has a long list of people that spent decades in prison because of this.
The solution to authoritarian regimes is to not have one, not tolerate cp on the internet.
> The solution to authoritarian regimes is to not have one, not tolerate cp on the internet.
Perhaps the problem doesn't have a binary solution.
I think it does, but not having such a regime has lots of implementation complexities? either you have one or you don't, so binary.
> The solution to authoritarian regimes is to not have one
The solution to not being poor is being rich. You could apply that logic to a lot of things. Have this thing instead of that thing. Using your example above of "differential privacy scanning"
Differential privacy is a property of a dataset meaning you can’t tell an individual was part of a dataset. If it’s traceable back to the individual device it’s not differentially private.
I think at this point you're just trying to say "don't have this thing have that thing instead" as a response to anything.
Better we let 10 criminals go free than violate the god-given right to privacy of 1 innocent.
For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.
> For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.
Except it doesn't work like that in practice. It would be nice if it did. Often a person can be found guilty simply by jury in a trial based on what they think a person might have done. That's reality, and it is the case in western would countries not some obscure dictatorship.
There is no god. You can bet the persons who have the magical keys to all the communications will come close to it though.
The world won't fall apart because people have secrets.
All of the sentences you've written are incorrect.
> There are solutions for anonymous payments using homomorphic encryption. Things like Zcash and Monero exist.
The main problem is there are no products that solve the problem Chat Control aims to solve without infringing massively on everyone's privacy, (including children). Any suggestions that do exist come with serious risks or have complexities, eg homomorphic encryption is a generally new area that has expensive computational requirements.
The reason for that is because it's easier to encrypt data than develop some kind of system with a magical key only authorized people are able to use under certain circumstances.
What Mullvad highlights is that the whole chat control proposal is mired in corruption. A particular individual with an agenda to sell something has adjacent financial interests to being part of the solution. No doubt they will want funding for "research", because they don't actually have a solution everyone can use. They try to make it appear as if they do (grift) to get the politicians on board. Then there's a harassment campaign component (specifically the EU Survivors Taskforce) portion which aims to apply public emotional pressure on any remaining politicians who have concerns.
In the end everyone else (companies, developers etc) will have to do the heavy lifting to try to find some way to comply by their legal interpretation with whatever vague brain fart is passed into law.
Make no mistake about it, this proposal has nothing to do with child protection but rather is all about demonizing the use of encryption. Law enforcement would love to be able to simply argue the presence of encryption means there is likely to be offending. This is why they fight so hard in the UK in regard to Apple having default encryption on ADP. You can't make the argument to a court owning an iPhone means you're a criminal for instance.
The end game, and goal post movement will simply be to argue they used non-compliant software/products. If they do have something on the person then this will be used to argue that further offenses were likely concealed, (even if that is not the case) and they went to effort to do so (premeditation). It's a gift that keeps giving all along the trial process.
> EDIT: Here is one idea I had: Sign images/video with hardware-secured chips (camera sensor or GPU?) that is traceable to the device. When images are further processed/edited, then they will be subject to differential-privacy scanning. This can also combat deepfakes, if image authenticity can be proven by the device that took the image.
And there obviously will be totally like no way to like not do that and then have an anonymous photo. What are you going to do, confiscate all the computers, phones and cameras that already exist and don't have this special "hardware secure chip". Honestly at this point I think you're a troll.
> If your position is that governments (who represent us,voters) should accept the status quo, and just let their people suffer injustice, I don't think I can support that.
Things can be always worse, and you shouldn't assume that the powers that be will use these things to prosecute the things you find morally offensive. Which is another problem as well.
> Mullvad is also in for a rude awakening. If criminals use Tor or VPNs, those will also face a ban. We need to give governments solutions that lets them do what they claim they want to do (protect the public from victimization) while preserving privacy to avoid a very real dystopia.
The space will innovate regardless of what governments want, so that's the rude awakening. Criminals always will be criminals and they'll just get better at doing what they want to do regardless.
> Freedoms and liberties must not come at the cost of injustice. And as i argued elsewhere on HN, in the end, ignoring ongoing injustice will result in even less freedoms and liberties. If there was a pluralistic referendum in the EU over chat control, I would be surprised if the result isn't a law that is even far worse than chat control.
Okay then guess we can all "think of the children" whenever anyone is worrying about the injustice caused by abuse of these new powers.
> I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.
Placation of government and law enforcement is never complete. For them every goal post moved is perceived as making their job easier. They only have one job, and that's to convict people of things. That is the only metric they care about. That includes making up new offences to charge people with, including "the defendant used non compliant products to hide their offending which may or may not exist" - not a crime in the EU right now, but you can bet that will be the next step if people refuse to use compliant products.
> Let me post a longer reply later. But for your last point, we do have automated machine generated alarms in form of smoke detectors. We're legally required to have them in our homes.
A smoke alarm has very little room for abuse as it only does one thing which largely aligns with the occupant's interests. A more comparable argument would be that you must have cameras in every room in your house to record burglars, home invaders and potential child abductors. We need not look any further than the abuse of door bell cameras in the US to see how that plays out.
Funny how nobody has ever made that argument.
[dead]