1193
Meta found liable in child exploitation case (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

... while they feign child protection to avoid costs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

Because you think they are conspiracies with goals to spy on you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Because we KNOW they do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    The victims of child exploitation? Or the lawyers representing them? Or..? I’m not asking about vague general “save the children” stuff. I’m talking about this lawsuit and similar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago*

    Not the person you were responding to, but IMO it's the defense attorneys / legal department working to ensure that the legal outcome is as beneficial to the corporations as possible, even if they "lose". In this case the fine is a cost of doing business, not nearly enough to actually discourage malfeasance and the legal/ PR pivot to blaming encryption rather than their algorithms is something they hope will tee them up to be able to do even more massive surveillance in the near future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent