UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning of Digital Communications
https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-expands-online-safety-act-to-mandate-preemptive-scanning
https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-expands-online-safety-act-to-mandate-preemptive-scanning
17 Comments
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works · 46 pts · 222d
Even if you can somehow get past the absolutely horrendous privacy implications, how the fuck is this even supposed to work? They want to prevent "digital flashing" (eg, dick pics), but how the fuck is any system supposed to be able to tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual content? What if someone wants to see a picture of someone's dick? Even assuming you can create a computer model that can accurately identify a dick pic every single time (you can't), it would also have to be able to infer context to a level that would require effectively human level intelligence and the ability to make judgements across the entirety of a person's communications. This is so far beyond impossible, from a purely technical standpoint, that I cannot begin to imagine how it was ever allowed to become law.
jasoman@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 222d
Dick or hot dog.
kambusha@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 222d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWwCK95X6go
xthexder@l.sw0.com · 2 pts · 221d
I'd also argue a human monitoring your conversation would likely make similar mistakes in judgement about what's happening, and this kind of invasion of privacy just isn't okay in any form. There could be whole extra conversations happening that they can't see (like speaking IRL before sending a consentual picture).
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 221d
I agree, but my point is that even in the minds of the people who think it's OK to invade privacy like this, I still don't see how this is supposed to produce useful results.
HurricaneLiz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 222d
Yeah, r/cospenis might break an AI
serpineslair@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 222d
That's disgusting.
elvis_depresley@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 222d
Why is the government obsessed with scanning people's privates?
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 222d
Sex is a scapegoat for implementing surveillance and discrimination systems. The same as every "think of the children" law ever passed.
It's not about the children, it's about making it impossible for opponents to justify in the 10 second sound bite that the media allows with no further context whatsoever. And that's all of the media that 90% of people consume.
fort_burp@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 221d
Agree, and it's a way for governments to look like they're doing something while continuing to not do anything. Wanna stop non-consensual sex with minors? Release the Epstein files and prosecute the offenders to the full extent of the law. Don't wanna stop non-consensual sex with minors? Do this. All the privacy and free speech violations are just "collateral damage" and "externalities" inflicted on people who don't really matter... the 99%.
jasoman@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 222d
It is not the goal just a step to the end goal.
Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 222d
I wonder how this will affect projects like Simplex
UnGlasierteGurke@feddit.org · 6 pts · 222d
they should just do preemptive scanning of everything you see at this point.
/sunabart@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 222d
That's pretty much the endgame here.
Frozentea725@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 222d
I've only seen this reported here, is there an alternative new link
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 222d
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stronger-laws-for-tech-firms-to-ensure-you-dont-see-unsolicited-nudes
fort_burp@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 221d
How are they going to prosecute Grok and ChatGPT? Just above in my feed is an article where ChatGPT suggested drug combinations that led a young man to accidentally kill himself with drugs.