First, suppose two child pornographers get together and agree on a set of word substitutions that remove the key words and phrases deemed suspect. Now the authorites are scanning chats about flowers being planted, or birds being watched, etc. that are actually about targeting victims. Then the only detected uses of suspect words and phrases are accidental. If the authorites learn the new lingo the perpetrators will evolve it.
The only child pornographers that will be caught are the very stupid ones but they would have been caught by other less invasive means.
Meanwhile, the mass surveilance will destroy the free market. Imagine having to negotiate contracts when every business is a global corporation that knows what colour underwear you are wearing from scanning all of your chats. That means every business has a permanent information asymmetry in its favour, in every economic transaction you will ever make. Try to negotiate the purchase of a car, home, and so forth.
It would seem the end of freedom is nigh, listen for the sound of cheering and applause.
Isn't it obvious that mass surveilance only works on those who can be kept ignorant of it? If people know about surveilance then their behaviour is altered. How do entire nations and groups of nations fall for nonsensical plans like chat control.
The idea of chat control is to combat child vicimization by setting authorities on impossibly costly, technically insane strategies that can be thwarted by a high functioning chimpanzee.
First, suppose two child pornographers get together and agree on a set of word substitutions that remove the key words and phrases deemed suspect. Now the authorites are scanning chats about flowers being planted, or birds being watched, etc. that are actually about targeting victims. Then the only detected uses of suspect words and phrases are accidental. If the authorites learn the new lingo the perpetrators will evolve it.
The only child pornographers that will be caught are the very stupid ones but they would have been caught by other less invasive means.
Meanwhile, the mass surveilance will destroy the free market. Imagine having to negotiate contracts when every business is a global corporation that knows what colour underwear you are wearing from scanning all of your chats. That means every business has a permanent information asymmetry in its favour, in every economic transaction you will ever make. Try to negotiate the purchase of a car, home, and so forth.
It would seem the end of freedom is nigh, listen for the sound of cheering and applause.
Isn't it obvious that mass surveilance only works on those who can be kept ignorant of it? If people know about surveilance then their behaviour is altered. How do entire nations and groups of nations fall for nonsensical plans like chat control.
The idea of chat control is to combat child vicimization by setting authorities on impossibly costly, technically insane strategies that can be thwarted by a high functioning chimpanzee.
What am I missing?