>When we build systems like this, we need shared, testable definitions of what a well-designed intervention actually is. It should not be left to each vendor’s judgment. At a minimum, it means an intervention that changes what the child does in the moment, which the evidence on timely prompts suggests it can. It must also do the opposite of harm: it must not frighten the child, must not teach them more about the threat than they need to know and must never make them feel they have done something wrong or that acting will get them or someone they love into trouble. That fear is precisely what keeps children silent — and an intervention that surfaces only to the child removes it. This also flips the usual problem of false positives. A scanning system must be near-perfect, because its mistakes fall on the accused; an on-device prompt can afford to err on the side of caution, because the worst case is a calm nudge shown to a child who was never at risk and can simply ignore it. This does not soften the privacy-versus-protection trade-off. It dissolves it.
I like the idea of on-device protective software; like an antivirus, but social. A lot of adults could use such stuff too…
hawkseye17 on
But that’s the main goal of these laws, it isn’t protection of children.
SlayahhEUW on
Sure but the point of the legislation is to prevent an asymmetrical informational warfare situation with all the other global superpowers that have mass surveillance themselves, and not to protect the kids. However this is a harder sell to make
Fluffy-Fix7846 on
[ Removed by Reddit ]
AL_25 on
Well duh
Fluffy-Fix7846 on
WHY are you banning people who are commenting on this!? WHat is the hidden agenda?
Fluffy-Fix7846 on
FUCK YOU REDDIT AND EU. I apparently “encouraged” violence after writing something sceptical here LOL. But I know, europeans like the Germans like opression. Have fun!
Fluffy-Fix7846 on
Maybe we should ban the boomers instead. They got all your money, resources, and now want to control you even further.
DataGOGO on
It is not the government’s job, that is a parent’s responsibility.
iVar4sale on
But it’s not really about protecting children, is it?
StorageSystemPT on
As someone once said: sure, they can do it, but it’s just not the same…
This way they have no excuse to filter news websites or anything else that doesn’t align with their economic or political ideology and the second you say anything they don’t like they’ll be knocking on your door
For instance, I haven’t seen a single news outlet covering this story, at least not in my country. Whether it’s a public or private channel.
I love where the world is heading!!! /s
isoAntti on
shh! it was never about children.
Nuclear-1- on
The past “Children protection” programs which we have dozens of, didn’t protect the victims of Epstein. And Europe was heavily involved.
helm on
The story seems to propose that “children’s devices” have software installed to detect grooming. How that is not surveillance, I don’t know. And grooming is just one problem out of many.
18 Comments
yeah but they can’t surveil people without surveillance
Duh
god forbid we ask parents to do parenting.
how about parents doing their job and not offload their offspring’s care to other people?
It was posted yesterday and was [removed by mods](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1uvmc5c/skasowane_przez_osob%C4%99_moderuj%C4%85c%C4%85/). btw Its not about protecting anyone.
>When we build systems like this, we need shared, testable definitions of what a well-designed intervention actually is. It should not be left to each vendor’s judgment. At a minimum, it means an intervention that changes what the child does in the moment, which the evidence on timely prompts suggests it can. It must also do the opposite of harm: it must not frighten the child, must not teach them more about the threat than they need to know and must never make them feel they have done something wrong or that acting will get them or someone they love into trouble. That fear is precisely what keeps children silent — and an intervention that surfaces only to the child removes it. This also flips the usual problem of false positives. A scanning system must be near-perfect, because its mistakes fall on the accused; an on-device prompt can afford to err on the side of caution, because the worst case is a calm nudge shown to a child who was never at risk and can simply ignore it. This does not soften the privacy-versus-protection trade-off. It dissolves it.
I like the idea of on-device protective software; like an antivirus, but social. A lot of adults could use such stuff too…
But that’s the main goal of these laws, it isn’t protection of children.
Sure but the point of the legislation is to prevent an asymmetrical informational warfare situation with all the other global superpowers that have mass surveillance themselves, and not to protect the kids. However this is a harder sell to make
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Well duh
WHY are you banning people who are commenting on this!? WHat is the hidden agenda?
FUCK YOU REDDIT AND EU. I apparently “encouraged” violence after writing something sceptical here LOL. But I know, europeans like the Germans like opression. Have fun!
Maybe we should ban the boomers instead. They got all your money, resources, and now want to control you even further.
It is not the government’s job, that is a parent’s responsibility.
But it’s not really about protecting children, is it?
As someone once said: sure, they can do it, but it’s just not the same…
This way they have no excuse to filter news websites or anything else that doesn’t align with their economic or political ideology and the second you say anything they don’t like they’ll be knocking on your door
For instance, I haven’t seen a single news outlet covering this story, at least not in my country. Whether it’s a public or private channel.
I love where the world is heading!!! /s
shh! it was never about children.
The past “Children protection” programs which we have dozens of, didn’t protect the victims of Epstein. And Europe was heavily involved.
The story seems to propose that “children’s devices” have software installed to detect grooming. How that is not surveillance, I don’t know. And grooming is just one problem out of many.