• Ret2libsanity@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    CSAM is never an excuse to violate everyone’s privacy.

    I hate seeing people implying that it is. It’s no better then Patriot Act B.s that took away privacy in the name of catching terrorists.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      This once more reminds me of the guy in Sweden who got assaulted by police, in his bed, because an American institution searched through his Yahoo mail and found pictures and videos of him and his 30 year old boyfriend and incorrectly flagged it as CSAM, and then forwarded it to Swedish authorities.

      There was no justice after that. No repercussions for either the Swedish police or the American government, and no damages paid to the guy.

      Could this sort of surveillance stop abuse of minors? Yeah absolutely, but at what cost?

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, absolutely. That’s literally what I said. In fact CSAM should come bundled on every single electronic device. Then it won’t be a problem anymore.

          Of course not. My comment was in response to the discussion about companies going through private emails and the like (which I recognise the original post isn’t about, but that’s what this conversation turned into) and how I take issue with that. You might argue that we have no right to privacy when we use products like gmail and whatnot, which would be a fair argument if they didn’t already dominate the market.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      When those links are hosted on Google servers, publicly available to anyone handed the link to them?… how is that a private space?

      This isn’t reaching into your phone and checking the information you store on it, this is checking links you added and shared with others using their service. They absolutely have the right to check them.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except that’s not how it works.

          If I go into a public park, put up a tent, then start breaking the parks rules, I’m not “in the clear” just because I’m in a tent and didn’t invite anyone else in.

    • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The fact that you think “privacy” existed even then is telling. The only thing that changed in that regard with the so-called Patriot BS is whether the gov’t could do it without the guile that otherwise had been SoP for decades. 🤦🏼‍♂️