Most victims of child abuse know their aggressor because it is part of their social circle: dad, mother, uncle, brother, sport coach or a friend of the parents/sibling.
It's impossible to stop all crime without an all-encompassing surveillance state. At some point you have to set boundaries for what the state is allowed to do in the name of safety.
Agreed. But then you have to explain how you set your boundary. You can't just say that the right boundary is yours.
ChatControl will protect some kids. If your argument is "yeah, shit happens", you won't convince anyone. If your argument is "yes, but at a great cost for society", then you need to explain what the cost is.
Saying "your freedom" is worth exactly as much as "but CSAM" when said from the other side. It's not enough. What is the tangible risk of ChatControl?
What I am saying is that scanning every single communication most definitely helps preventing some CSAM.
Is it worth it? Well that's the question, and I am against ChatControl so I think it is not worth it. But if you try to convince a politician that scanning every single communication cannot ever help law enforcement, then good luck. Because you are wrong.
Why not taking valid arguments against ChatControl instead?
Predators use mainstream social media to enter in contact with children.
Most victims of child abuse know their aggressor because it is part of their social circle: dad, mother, uncle, brother, sport coach or a friend of the parents/sibling.
Most, not all of them.
Or are you saying that we should not care about the others?
It's impossible to stop all crime without an all-encompassing surveillance state. At some point you have to set boundaries for what the state is allowed to do in the name of safety.
Agreed. But then you have to explain how you set your boundary. You can't just say that the right boundary is yours.
ChatControl will protect some kids. If your argument is "yeah, shit happens", you won't convince anyone. If your argument is "yes, but at a great cost for society", then you need to explain what the cost is.
Saying "your freedom" is worth exactly as much as "but CSAM" when said from the other side. It's not enough. What is the tangible risk of ChatControl?
>You can't just say that the right boundary is yours.
Constitution says I can. The country is governed by people.
Are you saying that scanning every single communication the only way?
What I am saying is that scanning every single communication most definitely helps preventing some CSAM.
Is it worth it? Well that's the question, and I am against ChatControl so I think it is not worth it. But if you try to convince a politician that scanning every single communication cannot ever help law enforcement, then good luck. Because you are wrong.
Why not taking valid arguments against ChatControl instead?