▲ 1193 ▼ Meta found liable in child exploitation case (www.theguardian.com) submitted 7 months ago by staircase@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world 148 comments fedilink hide all child comments ... while they feign child protection to avoid costs
[–] msage@programming.dev 23 points 7 months ago (3 children) Because we KNOW they do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 16 points 7 months ago They just established legal precident of e2ee as "harmful to minors" permalink fedilink source parent [–] obre@slrpnk.net 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
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 16 points 7 months ago They just established legal precident of e2ee as "harmful to minors" permalink fedilink source parent [–] obre@slrpnk.net 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
[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 16 points 7 months ago They just established legal precident of e2ee as "harmful to minors" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] obre@slrpnk.net 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