Maybe because the start menu equivalent and the task bar are their own modules. They just come precondition, but you can use lots of alternatives. But I'm just guessing.
Not exactly the same, but Microsoft shipped the "Backup" or some similar name software that is actually just a OneDrive client in a Windows 10 LTSC update. LTSC is specifically for not getting such feature updates. They also changed the folder icons in the graphical shell at some point.
> No singular country can put information in that wouldn't be picked up straight away by other countries. There are 70 countries signed up to it.
Once that is in place it's just a tiny change to switch to a national database. Granted, that's not a purely technological argument, but the main point is, you are not in control of what your images are scanned for and you cannot even verify it because it's hashes.
> Using hashes as a way to match doesn't scale in the way you describe. So it wouldn't be feasible to do that.
Why wouldn't it? If it scales for CSAM why wouldn't it scale for other types of content? If it doesn't scale for CSAM why are we even arguing about it? There is no technological difference between the two. It's all just images or videos.
> All major companies (for about 10 years) scan everyone's images/files for CSAM. That is happening now.
They scan the images on there servers. They do not scan my images, for example.
> It would have dramatically reduced server costs and meant that your files were 100% safe on the cloud from the government, instead of what they are now. Everyone lost their mind over it, but were taking news stories as facts when it didn't match the research paper.
It would have reduced server costs for Apple at the expense of energy costs and battery life for their customers. I fail to see how that is a win.
I don't care if my files are safe in "the cloud" when they are not safe on my device before being uploaded to the cloud.
Also Apple introduced E2EE later anyway and there are other E2EE cloud storage options that have been available before. You are painting a false dilemma. We can have E2EE without surveillance scanning.
>>> if your government is determined to spy on its population there are much easier and less intrusive methods of doing so.
What are those methods? It is always about the children and terrorism when the government wants to extend mass surveillance.
Btw, when I follow your link I only get en error page stating "Access to this site was denied for security reasons. Please contact your network or system administrator."
> The hash database is regulated and used worldwide. To get the hashes of what you mention into the database requires numerous people signing off on it.
So, it's correct. What you're describing is a policy, not a technical limitation. The technical infrastructure allows exactly that. Policies can and will be changed and bypassed.
> It is also a 1:1 match, not a "dissident said X" type meme match.
So you can maintain a list of dissident memes just like you can maintain a list of CSAM. There is absolutely nothing technologically differentiating CSAM from images with dissenting political content. The database is an arbitrary list of material deemed hostile. Only putting CSAM on it is a pinky promise that will be broken.
> All scanning is done on the cloud.
Because there was so much backlash against putting spyware in devices, not because they didn't try.
> Forced Apple to remain keeping users data accessible on the cloud.
What are you talking about?
> The truth is, if your government is determined to spy on its population there are much easier and less intrusive methods of doing so.
Why is such a large political faction in the EU continuing to push for this surveillance in the form of Chat Control then? You are just stating this with no facts to back it up against all the evidence to the contrary.
I find you're perspective quite baffling. It is interesting in that you like the standardization and lack of certain web design crimes and I should not be overly negative to the OP showing their work^1. But man, I truly cannot understand how anyone can see that slop design and feel anything positive. It makes me want to instinctively close the tab immediately as soon as I see it.
[1] It's mostly not their work and just generated though that's not as relevant. But still I think we should be polite when someone shows something that has the chance of having some significant amount of human effort in it.
> It completely fails if, for example, an author spends 4 years unpaid writing their latest book, and after the first copy is sold anybody is free to duplicate the words from that book without giving the author a penny for that work. One of the specific reasons for copyright is to ensure that the author is granted exclusivity over sale of the works, such that they can earn a fair wage to compensate for the 4 years of their life without any income at all.
I completely agree with you. Authors should have a monopoly over the distribution of their work "for a limited time so the author has the chance of making money from their work".
> How us it unfair that if that author lives another 50 years and people are happy paying for the book for the next 50 years, the author should continue receiving money for it, rather than just some unrelated party whose only skill is being able to scan and reprint the book for basically the cost of the paper?
You are framing this in an emotional, artificially limited scenario under the category of fairness. The reality is that copyright has been extended multiple times for works that had already been written for the benefit of huge corporations that lobbied for it. The revenue of an accomplished author for their family is a feel good pretense for this. They did not play any role in the political decision process for this. The authors of these works created them without the expectancy of lifelong copyright protection and even copyright protection for their descendants. That did not stop them from creating these works and had they expected lifelong copyright I am certain we now would not have significantly more works from this time frame.
You are portraying only the author in this and postulating copyright like a natural right that is only fair. It is not. Copyright is censorship. It is not fair to censor the derivative works of others or to demand payment from people for obtaining copies of decades old works; to use your category of the subjective feeling of fairness. Much more importantly than the feeling of it being fair: It is unjust. Copyright is censorship. It restricts access to information and culture. We initially imposed this censorship as a societal contract between the public and an author to incentivize the creation of more works. We restrict people from sharing a work and even from creating their own derivative creative work of it, because only through this censorship the work being censored even came to be. Therefore the result of that censorship is more expression, art and information, not less. This is why the censorship of copyright is justifiable. Any copyright term beyond this is unjust.
You speak of copying as an unskilled, dishonorable act. Copying is what our civilization including all the great works you want to monopolize are built on. All significant works are derivative works to some degree. We now live in a world where through the monopolization of creative works under few huge media conglomerates these conglomerates effectively own large parts of our culture. The lengthy copyright terms give these corporations exclusive controls over many aspects of our cultural heritage. We still make adaptions to ancient mythology to this day, but the cultural canon of our society has greatly expanded since them. Mythology and fairy tales only grew to what they are because there was no copyright on them. What we are doing today to our modern cultural heritage is like the ancient Greeks putting copyright on mythologies. Had they done that our literature would be much poorer today. Would we limit copyright terms our literature would be much richer today by allowing people to write their own derivative works to the cultural goods of our age.
> If anything these films are a great example of why copyright terms should be long, because those films are still culturally relevant today, 60-80 years after they're made, and that people are still willing to pay for them over newer films shows that the creators and their families still deserve to continue to get royalties from them.
The people who get most of the money from these movies are the shareholders of huge media conglomerates, which is the only reason why these works still have copyright. Authors and their families are purely a pretense for this.
The point of people deserving a monopoly over aspects of culture long after they created a work and deserving to censor the works of others who do not pay royalties to their monopoly – this is what copyright means – is weird. It sounds good as long as you read it as a feel good story without thinking about it, but it is ultimately moot. No, they do not. The argument is bizarre. We do not grant this privilege to anyone else. Everyone else gets paid for their work when they do it. They can even invest the money like everyone else. When you've hit it big with a creative work you are set for life. But when I build a house for you, I get paid once. I cannot get back to you 20 years later and demand payment once again because you are still living in it and benefiting from my work. It would be absurd. Obviously in creative works there is usually uncertainty. Most works are not created in exchange to a previously agreed commission by one party, but are created as an advance investment and then offered to the general public. We have to grant copyright to these works for a limited time so the author has the chance of making money from their work. There is no reason to extent this copyright beyond this limited time period and to grant authors such a special privilege. On the contrary there is all the reason not to do this as copyright is ultimately censorship and must be limited to the utmost minimal necessity.
> Disney, which is that their older works frequently took stories that were specifically out of copyright, and then they vigourously pursued copyright on the films they made from those stories.
That is perfectly fine. No one in their right mind would argue against that. The evil of disney is not creating derivative works of works in the public domain, but after the fact lobbying to retroactively extend copyright forever so that no work will ever fall into the public domain again; so that no one will be able to do the same as them – creating derivatives to decades old works that ought to be in the public domain; so that they can effectively own culture.
> For instance, if copyright was just 20 years after something was created, a painting might have been created 20 years ago but never made public until later in their life, and so copyright has expired before they've ever tried to sell it.
Copyright should last ten years, at the very maximum 15 years, after publication. This is an entirely solved problem. The solution is just not implemented because in reality copyright is not about incentivizing authors at all.
> Maybe there was only public interest in their work later on in their career and suddenly their early work was now considered valuable.
Sucks for them. No reason to grant indefinite copyright.
> Or if it's 20 years from the date something was made available to the public, then you could reset the clock by creating a slightly different work
No, you couldn't. Why would a derivative work prolong the copyright term of the original? The derivative work would have copyright on its own if it had significant additional creative input (so not just spelling corrections). The original is entirely unaffected by this. Derivative works are already a settled concept in copyright. Nothing about them is new or special.
What you are describing is indiscriminate mass surveillance. There is absolutely nothing stopping Apple or whoever maintains that listof hashes from putting things other than child abuse on there, like dissident memes for example.
It also requires devices to run this spyware without a way to disable it. The natural consequence of this is to ban everything but government approved, restricted OSes and to outlaw devices capable of running anything but these. Mandatory CSAM scanning is part of the war on general computing and privacy.
To clarify, I am aware you are objectively describing the legal situation. I am not making a legal, but an ethical argument. We seem to be agreeing.
There is even a Wikipedia article about the legality. It's quite complicated in a lot of places because people really like to ban it but it very much is free speech or protected artistic expression in countries that have these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...
To be clear fictional pornography about real children has to be distinguished from fictional characters. Even when the depiction is purely fictional. Sexualizing real children is unacceptable.
Fictional erotica portraying fictional children is not CSAM. There is no child abuse taking place as there is no child in the first place.
Conflating the two is 1. wrong as a matter of fact and ethics and 2. a great injustice to the victims of child abuse.
This is exactly what I wrote about in the second part of my comment. People see themselves as the victim of CSAM or proclaimed CSAM through being witness to it. In fictional works there is no child who could be the victim showing very clearly what these people are really about. They are not primarily concerned about children being exploited but they do not like the existence of such material as them deem it offensive to themselves.
CSAM is a very real crime; including cases where real children are not physically harmed but get sexualized through the composition of the material. It is a crime because it violates children, not because it is offensive to societal norms.
> I personally know of 1 who took a leak across from a playground at 2am walking home from the bars and was put on the sex offender registry because it was within 500'.
You might want to look up if that's actually true. It might be. It might also be a lie to hide the real reason why they are registered.
To play devil's advocate: child abuse is usually a crime without direct evidence. CSAM is child abuse but the perpetrator films their crime as evidence. Everyone else who obtains and keeps this material also holds evidence against themselves as the possession of it is the crime.
Now for real: People often do not care a lot about child abuse. It does not affect them as it happens in private where they do not see it. CSAM however does affect them as it makes the abuse visible and shows something deemed reprehensible. In a lot of ways people see themselves being witness (even indirect by purely hearing about it) to CSAM as the victim rather than the children who are harmed in the making and by redistribution.
My cynical opinion is that it is a lot more about social norms and feelings arising from the violation of these norms rather than the harm done through the violation of children.
> offline backups are not made after every single transaction.
All you need is an append only tape or even a printer.
Interestingly in the Bangladesh Central Bank hack they used a printer to print out any transactions, but the intruders disabled it or it was just malfunctioning because it's a printer.
But I doubt the Romanians actually had such a system.
Is this really how a lot of people understand the term autism spectrum? Obviously there are manY people who do not know pretty much anything about autism, but is this really a common misunderstanding.
Healthcare varies widely in Europe. It's not one country. But the "on private health care" part is they key. It's really not that different in lots of parts of Europe with the difference that people who do not have that still have access to the healthcare system without going bankrupt, albeit slower.