• southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    ·
    2 months ago

    Frankly, good.

    There has yet to be any of these purported “child protection” scams that would do a damn thing for kids, and only invades the privacy of people that have zero reason to be investigated in the first place

    • katy ✨
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      yeah cracking down on the child trafficking networks operating on telegram would totally not do a thing /s

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 months ago

        It wouldn’t. Anyone into that shit will just go somewhere else, and the price of that is yet another erosion of privacy.

        • katy ✨
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          yes if you go after people sharing it on the network you make it harder for them to access it. stop defending csam it’s creepy.

          • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Look, just because people don’t agree that a specific method will be effective, that doesn’t mean they support it.

            That’s shitty thinking, and even shittier behavior. You should be ashamed of yourself for going there in what was previously a civil, friendly discussion.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yah, that would be a great solution in comparison, but it’s still privacy invasive. Not as bad, but it’s still not giving people due process.

        Which, not everywhere in the world recognizes that principle as a right, I am aware. But I do consider due process a right, and scanning anything on anyone’s devices without a legally justifiable reason is a violation of that.

        I’m not willing to kowtow to a moral panic and just ignore the erosion of privacy “because the children”. And it is a moral panic. As bad as it is, as much as I personally would enjoy five minutes alone with someone that’s making or using kiddie porn of any stripe, it simply isn’t such a common thing that stripping everyone of their privacy, in any way is acceptable.

        They wanna figure out a way to target individuals suspected of that kind of crime, awesome. Untargeted, sweeping invasions simply are not acceptable, and I do not care what the purported reason of the week is; kiddie porn, terrorism, security, stopping drugs, I do not care. I have committed no crime, and refuse to give away the presumption of innocence for myself or anyone else.

    • Lucy :3@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hmm. I think many services just don’t and can’t participate because they’d need to break E2EE. Telegram wouldn’t with most chats.

  • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    When the West wants to censor the internet its always either child protection or national security.thats brought up as the reason.

  • nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Thank you for choosing “Tyranny as a Service!”

    How would you like this wrapped? [ ] Terrorism [X] Child porn

  • parpol@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    2 months ago

    If they refused to hand over data that they had about individuals on a warrant, I can see how the arrest was kind of justified.

    If the arrest was for refusing to install a backdoor for law enforcement to spy on anyone they want, then France needs to be kicked out of EU and sanctioned for human rights violations.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did religions joined child protection schemes? Because they are one of the biggest child indoctrination and abuse schemes in the world.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ruling class has been waging war on social media they dont have the ability to backdoor. My guess is they’d come for signal too if they didn’t use it themselves.

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      The government don’t usually need the text from your conversations, just the metadata who the person talks to, their location, etc. Signal is a US company, they surely provide all that data. It seems Telegram didn’t.

      • Lowpast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Signal does not. https://signal.org/bigbrother/santa-clara-county/

        Tl;dr: Signal gave the court timestamps for three out of nine phone numbers that the court demanded data on. The timestamps were the dates three phone numbers last registered their accounts with Signal. That’s it. That is all the data there was to give.

        This is why I use Signal. This is why I donate monthly to Signal.

  • katy ✨
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    imagine going to jail just because you refused to address the child abuse and csam on your own network.

      • katy ✨
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        meta does get pointed out but not as much since meta actually does things to combat csam.

        twitter gets called out ALL the time mostly because elon himself is intervening to reinstate people who share csam because he firedall the trust and safety teams.

      • beefbot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Putin loves Elon (& got him to ruin Xhitter apparently) so no, Elon won’t get arrested

  • yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The BBC contacted Telegram for comment about its refusal to join the child protection schemes and received a response after publication which has been included.

    Where is it? I didn’t find it anywhere in the article.