this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
289 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
77899 readers
3138 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, because traditionally corporations have been good at regulating themselves, and we all know that they never sell access to private information of individuals to their governments.
On top of that, your idea would never work because they want a tamper-proof system, which would require Google having total control over the implementation, which would not work since multiple projects like GrapheneOS strip google entirely out of Android.
Furthermore, this is just a slippery slope to even worse invasions of privacy, and if your idea was implemented it wouldn’t be long before they insisted on even deeper intrusions, justifying it as being incremental on the access they already had.
As far as I know self regulation by media industries implementing age labels prevented these kinds of "think of the children" bills before. No idea where you got the corporations having private information from, the entire idea is that it would be open source so we can know that it's not doing anything shady.
Politicians pushing for these bills don't care about the excuse they present, but the reason they can repeatedly use the same excuse is because it is a legitimate concern for people. I don't think digging our heels in to refuse a solution even if it were to align with our stated principle of preserving privacy helps us in the public consciousness.
"worse" isn't accurate as the entire point is that it would be designed to be non-invasive (for people who don't have csam anyways). Of course they'll keep trying to invade our privacy but with the example of a solution that doesn't use mass surveillance for something they tried to push surveillance for, they'll have less leg to stand on.
you:
them:
tell me you didn't read the linked info without telling me you didn't read it.
What made you think I was proposing a scheme compliant with the bill? I repeatedly said that this would be to prevent such a bill from passing. And explained my reasoning why it would do so.
To make it doubly clear: I don't support what they're trying to do. I just think it could do us good to ourselves address any legitimate concerns they use as excuses to implement surveillance so it's harder to use them as excuses.