The European parliament has blocked the extension of a law that permits big tech firms to scan for child sexual exploitation on their platforms, creating a legal gap that child safety experts say will lead to crimes going undetected.
The regulatory gap has created uncertainty for big tech companies, because while scanning for harms on their platforms is now illegal, they still remain liable to remove any illegal content hosted on their platforms under a different law, the Digital Services Act. Google, Meta, Snap and Microsoft said they would continue to voluntarily scan their platforms for CSAM, in a joint statement posted on a Google blog.
Privacy advocates argue that big tech scanning messages for child abuse threatens fundamental privacy rights and data security for EU citizens, equating these measures to “chat control” that could lead to mass surveillance and false positives.
“There are claims of surveillance or infringement of privacy,” Swirsky said. “Blocking CSAM is not an evasion of privacy. Free speech does not include sexual abuse of children.”
Goes on to show predatory child targeting energy drinks in their platforms
The regulatory gap has created uncertainty for big tech companies, because while scanning for harms on their platforms is now illegal, they still remain liable to remove any illegal content hosted on their platforms under a different law, the Digital Services Act.
That is plainly false. The DSA only requires that they remove illegal content when they become aware of it and specifically disallows general monitoring obligations. They do not scan means they aren’t aware of it means they aren’t liable to remove anything.
They are sad that they cannot DOS our police with false AI generated reports anymore and potentially destroy the lives of innocent people who get their photos falsely accused to be CSAM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11133805/Google-AI-flags-dad-photos-childs-groin-infection-phone-share-doctors.html
They’re upset about EU’s privacy laws?
Good. EU is clearly doing something right.
Lol the framing
Fuck off real pedo are in white house
I found this article interesting because big tech seems to care so much about scanning, that they are pushing on this.
Unfortunately the article doesn’t really delve into the privacy precedents and implications it would set, and mostly voices the arguments of big tech.
They only care for data to train their AI models.
Not just models, it’s more about getting additional data points for our advertising profiles.
Good catch!
bouffe mes boules
Oh hey big tech, how about you guys manage to make your products not suck and maybe then you get to have an opinion on matters.
Not fooling anyone with this.
Not fooling anyone with this.
The problem is that they are. That’s why they keep doing it.
Big tech whose business model partially depends on getting children hooked on low quality but rapidly changing content of almost infinite variation (atleast by human life span measure). Lets start for instance by asking which of these platforms allowed prime drink ads. That already eliminates everything except Microsoft probably.
Yes, the companies that kowtow to the pedophile with the finger over the red button are upset about child protection.
I think this is a difficult dilemma. My immediate instinct is that blocking illegal material is obviously an invasion of privacy. It is impossible to block one type of message without first reading all messages and classifying them.
But on the other hand, we’re talking about other people’s servers here. They shouldn’t have to host illegal material. In fact, it is illegal for them to do so. So it is their right to know what they’re hosting and clean it out.
Should we really have any expectation of privacy on big tech platforms? If you’re sending obviously illegal material in plain bytes to a Microsoft server, what do you think is going to happen?
The problem here is that somehow people got convinced that internet infrastructure is some kind of “magical realm” where physics and laws stop working.
If I rent out a house and someone starts doing “all the illegal things” at once in there, in secret, it’s not my responsibility, nor does that mean that the police or me as the property owner needs to do daily inspections because someone could do “all the illegal” things in secret.
If someone puts a neon side up on that house announcing “all the illegal things here, open from 9-18h” - then people get involved.
At the same time, can’t bad actors just encrypt whatever they want to share, so that it can’t be scanned?
In the end, regular users get the short stick.
