| ▲ | cortesoft 2 days ago |
| I can't help but think of the dad who was investigated by the FBI for having pictures he took to show his kid's doctor. Are parents going to be arrested for pictures of their kids in the bathtub? Or at least are they going to be blurred? |
|
| ▲ | dlcarrier 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Even without that kind of false positive, with every phone running the check on every image false positives on perfectly normal images will be extremely common. I occasionally use the Civitai.com to generate realistic images, and due to US regulators jawboning payment processors, they've put in strict filters. I've been using it for G-rated images, but they often get false positive for much worse ratings. I generated an image of a portrait of a couple at the beech, with a man in board shorts and a fully clothed woman, and it rated it XXX. One image of fully clothed people didn't even get a rating and was automatically removed as a "terms of service violation". |
|
| ▲ | octo888 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Probably. The government just made couples who record face sitting, without distributing, for their own use, sex offenders. edit: But we live in a country where everything is illegal but rarely anyone is arrested for it so that's somehow ok /s |
| |
| ▲ | cowlevel 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think someone needs to inform "bothers" that he's super-shadowbanned. A regular shadowban only requires one vouch for a user's comments to be revived. The comment seemed reasonable so I vouched for it, but it is still dead. That means they have somehow hit the second-level shadowban where your comments are permanently dead no matter what. | | |
| ▲ | bothers a day ago | parent [-] | | Someone just did. Thank you! I've made some pretty bad posts (drinking and grieving make me one pretty bitter girl) but I wonder who I beeswaxed to draw attention to it (well actually I don't, heh.) |
| |
| ▲ | bothers 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >The government just made couples who record face sitting, without distributing, for their own use, sex offenders. What What the HELL | |
| ▲ | donkey_brains 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | (Muffled) Oh no |
|
|
| ▲ | cperciva 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Honestly, doctors need training about what they should or should not ask parents for. When my daughter was a month old her GP asked me to take photos of her diaper rash and email them in. "Uh no, not going to do that." |
| |
| ▲ | Bjartr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is the concern the doctor, or someone in their office misusing the pictures? Or is it the fear of having such an image on your phone or sent over the internet at all? Or is the concern that the very concept of such an image being recorded is morally wrong? Or is it something else? | | |
| ▲ | sikozu 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think the most reasonable concern would be having the image sent over the internet. I wouldn't be afraid of anybody in their office misusing the picture because they're trained and it's just another day in the office for them. Body parts are body parts, it shouldn't be morally wrong because of where the photo is, I think that's problematic thinking in my opinion. |
| |
| ▲ | Liuser 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Real question, why not? It seems like a reasonable request barring needing to go into the office. My comms and images with our pediatricians are through their app (not email), which they constantly remind us is under strict HIPAA compliance. | | |
| ▲ | theodric 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Because it's not worth losing your Gmail account or having to explain to everyone you meet that no, you're not a pedophile, and you weren't "caught with CSAM," it was just an over-zealous prosecutor responding to an automated report and a misunderstanding about some photos the doctor requested, and anyway that case was thrown out... |
| |
| ▲ | jeltz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, we should instead stop sexualing children. And we should ban this kind of mass surveillance. | |
| ▲ | ulrikrasmussen 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's the problem with that? If you mean the channel, unencrypted email, then maybe I agree to some extent. If you mean taking pictures of children for the purpose of diagnosis I really don't follow. | | |
| ▲ | cowlevel 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your phone and your email provider are both going to ban you if you do this. |
| |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should be able to ask for that in a secure manner with security and retention controls and guardrails for how that data is accessed. In other words, email is not ideal. Or, if your time and money allows it, deny that option and take your kid into the doctor in person. |
|
|
| ▲ | chrisjj 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Are parents going to be arrested for pictures of their kids in the bathtub? No. Because this magical new software will prevent such pictures. |
| |
| ▲ | gambiting 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We both know that if it's not built in straight away, it will be upgraded to report you without even notifying you of the fact. Exactly how the Apple csam detection system was supposed to work before apple backed off - if a picture was deemed csam your phone would automatically report you without telling you about it. | | |
| ▲ | chrisjj a day ago | parent [-] | | Well, it can't report you for taking a picture it prevented you taking, can it? | | |
| ▲ | gambiting a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It can still report that it has detected CSAM on your phone, with whatever it saw on the screen attached as proof. Whether you clicked capture or not is irrelevant. Reading the proposal it sounds like not would literally look at your screen as you browse the internet and blur it "instantly". So it obviously looks at the screen in real time(how does anyone think this can actually be built and run without destroying the battery is beyond me, but I don't think these people have given it that much thought) | | |
| ▲ | chrisjj a day ago | parent [-] | | > Whether you clicked capture or not is irrelevant. I thought we were talking about taking photos. So only the first is illegal. | | |
| ▲ | gambiting a day ago | parent [-] | | The proposal suggests scanning your entire screen and blurring any content before you have a chance to see it. | | |
| ▲ | chrisjj a day ago | parent [-] | | So it is going to report you for stuff it saw on your phone screen but you didn't? Then in the kids in bath situation, what offence is it reporting you for? Attempted CSAM? | | |
| ▲ | chrisjj a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Again I don't think these people have thought this far. Agreed 100%. > If you have CSAM on your phone then clearly you must be a criminal, who cares how it got there /s The law cares. So it will be interesting to see how this is covered in formulation. | | |
| ▲ | gambiting a day ago | parent [-] | | >>The law cares Yes, the problem is that there were already cases where people were arrested for CP because they left their phone for repair and the tech reported them, they got swiped up from their home or work, spent months in jail waiting for trial, no one could look at the evidence because "it's CSAM", local newspapers posted that so and so were arrested for CP, they lost their jobs, and finally months later some prosecutor finally agreed to look at the evidence only to see the guy only had some pictures of his daughter in a paddling pool. Oops. Yeah, the law cared. The law released them, maybe even apologized. But by that point your life is over, if you haven't just killed yourself over the accusation of being one of the worst people ever. | | |
| |
| ▲ | gambiting a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Again I don't think these people have thought this far. If you have CSAM on your phone then clearly you must be a criminal, who cares how it got there /s The entire rationale they seem to offer is - to quote the article - "these companies make trillions of dollars, they can easily implement this". It's like saying that since Google makes trillions of dollars they can easily land on Mars, after all money solves all problems including physics. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lozf a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The way big tech is going, it'll report you for "attempted CSAM" and you won't even have the innocent rash picture to use in defence. | | |
| ▲ | chrisjj a day ago | parent [-] | | Well, I just hope I win the Nobel for Attempted Chemistry :) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | spwa4 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > No. Because this magical new software will prevent such pictures. WITHOUT informing the police of exactly what you were doing down to the centimeter in the past 2 years? Not a chance. Oh and in case anyone thinks this is the government wanting to protect children: Let's see how child services funding is doing (you know, the people actually caring for children) Child services funding: 20% down. The part of child services that actually cares for children: 70% funding lost over the last 10 years. It has gotten so bad there isn't A SINGLE LOCAL COUNCIL that isn't giving extra funding to their child services to prevent the worst. Not one. Not a single one. So that tells you more than enough about how much the House of Lords (or House of Commons or any other part of the UK government) cares for children, doesn't it? And obviously this exacerbates the worst things about child services ("stealing" children that got in minimal trouble but aren't in danger, because they're easy to care for and behave with promises they'll get out if they only ..., preference for younger children who don't fight youth services (but also suffer maximum psychological damage from youth services intervention) and throwing out children in real danger with whatever excuse) |
|
