Well, not to play the devils advocate but there have been several instances where most of Europe, including France, made efforts to protect children. Just in the recent conflicts:
EU is against genocide in Ukraine, where more than 500 children were killed and +25.000 children were kidnapped and filtrated in Russia. A deliberate action to eliminate Ukrainians and the Ukrainian culture.
In this case, Putin has several arrest warrants for crimes against Humanity and War Crimes in European countries, and other countries of course, and it will be a matter of time before genocide charges will be set.
They have also been giving aid to Sudan children.
Not to mention they have an unequivocal stance about child casualties in the war Israel-Hamas war:
> The European Council deplores all loss of civilian life. It notes with utmost concern the unacceptable number of civilian casualties, especially children, as well as the catastrophic levels of hunger and imminent risk of famine caused by the insufficient entry of aid into Gaza. It calls on all parties to take every feasible step to protect civilian lives.[0]
They also condemn Hamas terrorist attacks and their usage of Palestinians as protection, including children.
So I don't see that much of a contrast; they seem pretty consistent in supporting child protection.
Do you have better references for countries that are doing a better job at child protection than the EU? So we can have some contrasting measures to understand where the EU is lacking and where others are doing better - after all the EU isn't perfect and has a margin for improvement, it's quite a new organization.
> EU is against genocide in Ukraine, where more than 500 children were killed and +25.000 children were kidnapped and filtrated in Russia. A deliberate action to eliminate Ukrainians and the Ukrainian culture.
Sorry for being the devil's advocate but Russian children also get hurt or killed from Ukranian shelling of settlements near the border.
Why does Israel bomb apartment buildings, leaves civilians without drinking water and electricity instead of just arresting and prosecuting those who participated in terrorist acts?
I guess it is because it cannot arrest terrorists but citizens of Israel want to see something destroyed anyway.
> Only antisemites, racists, ethnophobes, and people who want Ukrainians, Israelis and Jews dead will disagree.
It's a serious violation of HN's guidelines to use flamewar rhetoric like this. I'm sure you have good reasons to feel strongly about the topic, but it's not ok to break the rules in this way. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
---
Edit: unfortunately, your account has been using HN primarily for political and national battle, and breaking the site guidelines a great deal. That's not allowed here, and we have to ban accounts that do it, so I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I suppose I need to add that this has nothing to do with which side of which battle you're on. We apply the rules the same way regardless of all that. The difference between your account and the other one I scolded in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41385066) is simply that your account has been violating the rules so frequently, as well as the important meta rule of not using the site primarily to do that.
> Only racists, Islamphopics and peoole who wants all arab dead will disagree.
It's a serious violation of HN's guidelines to use flamewar rhetoric like this. I'm sure you have good reasons to feel strongly about the topic, but it's not ok to break the rules in this way. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
But let's face it many on HN deny the norm and couldn't care less if Telegram is used for criminal content. It's undeniable that the app has a certain reputation.
For those who have built or participated in building large scale social networks (nvm global scale), you learn the Tim Ferris rule very quickly: 1 in a million is a common occurrence.
As soon as you have a social network you’ll experience a massive industry, trained over decades & with plenty of financial backers, farming it for victims.
Government bodies are hand-waving in the same way companies are - moderation is a difficult, unsolved problem and if you solved it you’d have a new set of difficult problems (opposing sides feeling they are getting more censored than others). No one has a solution to this, which is why regulations are entirely “doing enough to prevent the problem.” Can’t be done.
What I’ve seen expressed on HN has been the central posit of information systems since the beginning - if you require your information systems to be crime & abuse free, you will not have an information system anyone can use.
My personal stance is that an issue does not become a moral one until there is an actual solution on the table or the will to fund its development for the public good.
Where is the EU grants to solve this problem?
It’s seems fairly clear that the EU has invented a revenue engine that collects rent from tech to alleviate pressure on its own unpopular cost burden on its member countries. It’s smart, probably inevitable, and a reality for tech companies to contend with for the foreseeable future.
> if you require your information systems to be crime & abuse free, you will not have an information system anyone can use.
No one does and that’s not why Durov was arrested. It’s fine if there is crime on your system providing you are ready to work with law enforcement so that the space can be policed to the best of your ability.
If you don’t, you are basically voluntarily harming society and will be prosecuted. I’m personally fine with that.
I find it very hard to take the discussion about Telegram here seriously anyway because I just opened Telegram right now to check and sure enough the third contact in people nearby right now is called “Weed, Coke, Viagra - Buy now”. At some point, if you don’t see the issue, I think you might be intentionally blind.
> I just opened Telegram right now to check and sure enough the third contact in people nearby right now is called “Weed, Coke, Viagra - Buy now”. At some point, if you don’t see the issue, I think you might be intentionally blind.
Or we just see these discussions as something that shouldn't be criminalized. I'm happy that those who wish to buy drugs can do so on a safer platform than the street corner.
Well then lobby for drugs to be legalised because arguing for free expression when you are actually sad that your drug dealer got busted is completely hypocritical.
I do support drug legalization and decriminalization of all "victimless" crimes.
But I also realize that libertarian policies are unlikely to be adopted in today's political climate, so I also support technology that gets the government out of personal lives, regardless of the law.
>No one does and that’s not why Durov was arrested. It’s fine if there is crime on your system providing you are ready to work with law enforcement so that the space can be policed to the best of your ability.
If you don’t, you are basically voluntarily harming society and will be prosecuted. I’m personally fine with that.
What you say is absurd because you're assuming that what the government requests for being "ready to work with law enforcement" is actually reasonable, fair and considerate to certain rights that most of western society ostensibly takes seriously. You assume that the measures proposed under the guise of protecting some vulnerable group won't be used for other much more self-serving things that also very much harm society.
Both of these assumptions are visibly false in so many cases of such state requests that you can't just be "fine" with that unless you flat out don't give a shit about people's fundamental rights against a powerful state.
Note that only US-companies are required by (US, I guess) law to join these programs.
Also note this part:
> IWF said that the company did remove CSAM once material was confirmed but said it was slower and less responsive to day-to-day requests.
So in the end Telegram removed the content.
I think it would be better if Telegram used the hash lists, however I think that they should use manual review and not remove content automatically, because this is an US platform that theoretically can be misused to remove legal content that US govt doesn't like.
Hash lists aren't that hard to defeat. They'll stop the amateurs tossing stuff around endlessly but the real problem--the creators--will know to keep changing it up a little bit.
And the capability to remove anything means they have to respond to secret orders from the government to remove something.
I guess when you label your mendacious, snooping, encryption-breaking, backdoor sneak schemes created for the sake of easier mass surveillance as "child protection measures", moral alchemy turns them into wholesome good programs that only monsters would object to.
The state shouldn't be allowed to censor chat services no matter how much encryption is used. E2EE might make the censorship less practical but it doesn't make it OK.
So wider encryption should be a requirement of resisting mass surveillance facilitation pushed in the name of "protecting children"? It's amazing how far so many people have gone towards normalizing the idea that the state, or some supranational organization in the case of the EU, deserves the right to simply be able to monitor and access reams of private communications and their media at its whim.
Bad and criminal behaviors always existed. I see no evidence of them having been made any lesser or infrequent by virtue of giving massively powerful legally empowered organizations the right to monitor whatever they like at their self-righteously couched discretion.
Easiest thing is to say that you are protecting children. End to end encryption is that technology which ensures that when your wife sends you the shopping list on WhatsApp, tavarish militsiyan cannot eavesdrop and see that you ran out of toilet paper and liquid soap. But they must see! What if you accidentally dropped some pedoporno on that list? It's for kids protection!
So with this attack on Telegram encryption, definitely EU didn't wanna see what political opponents are doing or who's organizing what protest so they undermine it before it happens. We're just hunting pedophiles, what's your problem?
From the french gov's perspective, telegram is a worldwide web of underground tunnels that are inaccessible to the gov. And the gov, being a paranoidal control-freak, gets really upset when you're hiding something from it.
Hot take: the way to end CSAM (childhoods sexual abusing MPEGs (motion picture expert group) ) aka CP (childhood predator images) for those whom don't know the acronyms --
it is to legalize (((AI generatrated))) CSAM. No child harmed. As we see the internet is already full of AI slop, there can be no question that an infinite amount of CSAMslop may be generated.
The reason why this is good, is because anyone looking to profit or market REAL such material, now there is no longer a market to sell it, nor is there a market for giving it for free to get some sort of fucked up pedo kudos. For people who are actual victims and their data shared, their data is but a drop in a vast ocean.
45 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadEU is against genocide in Ukraine, where more than 500 children were killed and +25.000 children were kidnapped and filtrated in Russia. A deliberate action to eliminate Ukrainians and the Ukrainian culture.
In this case, Putin has several arrest warrants for crimes against Humanity and War Crimes in European countries, and other countries of course, and it will be a matter of time before genocide charges will be set.
They have also been giving aid to Sudan children.
Not to mention they have an unequivocal stance about child casualties in the war Israel-Hamas war:
> The European Council deplores all loss of civilian life. It notes with utmost concern the unacceptable number of civilian casualties, especially children, as well as the catastrophic levels of hunger and imminent risk of famine caused by the insufficient entry of aid into Gaza. It calls on all parties to take every feasible step to protect civilian lives.[0]
They also condemn Hamas terrorist attacks and their usage of Palestinians as protection, including children.
So I don't see that much of a contrast; they seem pretty consistent in supporting child protection.
Do you have better references for countries that are doing a better job at child protection than the EU? So we can have some contrasting measures to understand where the EU is lacking and where others are doing better - after all the EU isn't perfect and has a margin for improvement, it's quite a new organization.
[0]https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-humanitarian-...
Sorry for being the devil's advocate but Russian children also get hurt or killed from Ukranian shelling of settlements near the border.
I guess it is because it cannot arrest terrorists but citizens of Israel want to see something destroyed anyway.
It's a serious violation of HN's guidelines to use flamewar rhetoric like this. I'm sure you have good reasons to feel strongly about the topic, but it's not ok to break the rules in this way. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
---
Edit: unfortunately, your account has been using HN primarily for political and national battle, and breaking the site guidelines a great deal. That's not allowed here, and we have to ban accounts that do it, so I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I suppose I need to add that this has nothing to do with which side of which battle you're on. We apply the rules the same way regardless of all that. The difference between your account and the other one I scolded in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41385066) is simply that your account has been violating the rules so frequently, as well as the important meta rule of not using the site primarily to do that.
It's a serious violation of HN's guidelines to use flamewar rhetoric like this. I'm sure you have good reasons to feel strongly about the topic, but it's not ok to break the rules in this way. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://x.com/ISEUConcerned
Do you have better examples?
I'm not sure if Signal has that feature?
Seems beyond a "norm" if your CEO is jailed for not "conforming"
But let's face it many on HN deny the norm and couldn't care less if Telegram is used for criminal content. It's undeniable that the app has a certain reputation.
For those who have built or participated in building large scale social networks (nvm global scale), you learn the Tim Ferris rule very quickly: 1 in a million is a common occurrence.
As soon as you have a social network you’ll experience a massive industry, trained over decades & with plenty of financial backers, farming it for victims.
Government bodies are hand-waving in the same way companies are - moderation is a difficult, unsolved problem and if you solved it you’d have a new set of difficult problems (opposing sides feeling they are getting more censored than others). No one has a solution to this, which is why regulations are entirely “doing enough to prevent the problem.” Can’t be done.
What I’ve seen expressed on HN has been the central posit of information systems since the beginning - if you require your information systems to be crime & abuse free, you will not have an information system anyone can use.
My personal stance is that an issue does not become a moral one until there is an actual solution on the table or the will to fund its development for the public good.
Where is the EU grants to solve this problem?
It’s seems fairly clear that the EU has invented a revenue engine that collects rent from tech to alleviate pressure on its own unpopular cost burden on its member countries. It’s smart, probably inevitable, and a reality for tech companies to contend with for the foreseeable future.
No one does and that’s not why Durov was arrested. It’s fine if there is crime on your system providing you are ready to work with law enforcement so that the space can be policed to the best of your ability.
If you don’t, you are basically voluntarily harming society and will be prosecuted. I’m personally fine with that.
I find it very hard to take the discussion about Telegram here seriously anyway because I just opened Telegram right now to check and sure enough the third contact in people nearby right now is called “Weed, Coke, Viagra - Buy now”. At some point, if you don’t see the issue, I think you might be intentionally blind.
Or we just see these discussions as something that shouldn't be criminalized. I'm happy that those who wish to buy drugs can do so on a safer platform than the street corner.
I do support drug legalization and decriminalization of all "victimless" crimes.
But I also realize that libertarian policies are unlikely to be adopted in today's political climate, so I also support technology that gets the government out of personal lives, regardless of the law.
What you say is absurd because you're assuming that what the government requests for being "ready to work with law enforcement" is actually reasonable, fair and considerate to certain rights that most of western society ostensibly takes seriously. You assume that the measures proposed under the guise of protecting some vulnerable group won't be used for other much more self-serving things that also very much harm society.
Both of these assumptions are visibly false in so many cases of such state requests that you can't just be "fine" with that unless you flat out don't give a shit about people's fundamental rights against a powerful state.
Also note this part:
> IWF said that the company did remove CSAM once material was confirmed but said it was slower and less responsive to day-to-day requests.
So in the end Telegram removed the content.
I think it would be better if Telegram used the hash lists, however I think that they should use manual review and not remove content automatically, because this is an US platform that theoretically can be misused to remove legal content that US govt doesn't like.
And the capability to remove anything means they have to respond to secret orders from the government to remove something.
I would agree with you if Telegram actually had e2ee like Signal. But it isn't. No encryption breaking required to moderate public content.
Bad and criminal behaviors always existed. I see no evidence of them having been made any lesser or infrequent by virtue of giving massively powerful legally empowered organizations the right to monitor whatever they like at their self-righteously couched discretion.
https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/control-of-i...
So with this attack on Telegram encryption, definitely EU didn't wanna see what political opponents are doing or who's organizing what protest so they undermine it before it happens. We're just hunting pedophiles, what's your problem?