this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
284 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
85333 readers
4103 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe hold the parents accountable. Betya then they'll start caring about what their children are doing. Because yes, while there are adult perpetrators, there are also children themselves selling media they create on things like roblox servers. It's a rabbit hole.
Bonus: you don't have to invalidate everyone's right to fucking privacy.
Extra credit: you can still tax the fuck out of these trillion dollar corporations that are ruining the world.
I’m not sure if I agree with this take. To me, it is similar to saying we shouldn’t give kids free lunches, cause it’s the parents responsibility to feed their kid.
Like yeah, parents should be feeding their kid. But it’s also unreasonable to think that every single parent is doing that. It’s just not realistic, so we should definitely be feeding kids when they aren’t getting it at home.
On the same token, I don’t see anything wrong with trying to protect kids from talking with strangers, or getting sent explicit material, when their parents don’t know or care how to do it themselves.
then enforce child predator laws. or rape laws in general. thats a REAL rabbit hole that will disgust any normal person. the problem is that nobody wants to deal with the actual problem so they outsource it to privacy nightmares like what we are seeing now
I don’t think it HAS to be a privacy nightmare. It’s possible for all of this to happen securely on device.
That being said I do not trust most corporations to implement it securely.
The lunch analogy is too generic for the complexity here and I think it breaks down entirely given the innate assumption that a parent's responsibility is only a parent's responsibility, which isn't true.
Should the government provide free school lunches? Absolutely. That requires funding and legislative will. The government has a responsibility (well, theoretically) to protect and serve its people, including children and families. An overlap of responsibility if you will. Free school lunches does not infringe on anyone's rights and instead betters communities, eases burden on struggling parents, and helps students perform and receive proper nutrition. And should a family or student wish to not receive a school lunch, they are free to opt out and bring their own. It doesn't require scanning every student's lunchbox or installing surveillance infrastructure in every kitchen. The intervention is proportionate to the problem.
Starmer's proposal isn't. Preventing nude image sharing at the device level requires either client-side scanning of all communications or breaking end-to-end encryption entirely. That's mass surveillance infrastructure installed on every phone, affecting every adult, every journalist, every abuse survivor using encrypted messaging, every person who has ever sent a legal private image to another consenting adult. And unlike our lunch analogy, a family or student, nor an unaffiliated person altogether, has little to no option to opt out should they use one of these major platforms/devices. The harm of the intervention is categorically larger than the harm it addresses.
A better analogy: should a parent leave alcohol or an unsecured firearm accessible to a child? No, and we hold parents accountable for that. We don't require routine home inspections of every household to verify compliance. The accountability lands on the person who chose to bring the dangerous item into proximity with the child and who controls access to it. The parent pays for the phone. The parent pays for the data plan. The parent hands the child the device. The tools to monitor and restrict that device already exist, provided by the large platforms, on routers, etc, and are largely unused.
The problem is real. The solution being proposed requires dismantling privacy for everyone to address the failures of some. There are targeted interventions that haven't been exhausted. Those who stand to benefit are not the children, but the companies able to profit off the data collected and the governments able to invade privacy where there wasn't said existing infrastructure to do so.
This is a controlling party (government/private companies) abusing a moral panic which has been common throughout history. Just look at the Patriot Act.
I mostly agree with everything you say, except for one thing.
I’m pretty sure it’s technically possible to detect nude images, on device, 100% securely, without anyone ever knowing it was detected. This probably isn’t the approach that some corporations will take, but as far as I am aware, this is how the current nude detection on iPhone works. It’s all on device, and just blurs it so the user has to accept a warning before seeing the content. If you control your phone, you can disable it. If it’s a phone setup for a child, the child cannot disable it. It’s up to the parent to specify what the child is allowed to do.
Fair point, and I'll concede, but only partially, as it is nit what is being discussed here. Starmer's proposal isn't asking for Apple to expand their system, it's mandating platforms to comply and make it impossible, and the platforms can choose how to do so. On-device detection that never leaves the device is a meaningfully different privacy profile than server-side scanning or breaking E2E encryption. Apple's Communication Safety feature works roughly as you described and that architecture is less invasive than the worst case scenario. If every implementation were genuinely on-device, opt-in, parent-controlled, and open source verifiable, it would be a different conversation.
But that's where my concession stops.
We can only take a corporation's word that it's truly on-device and nothing is retained. The history of that promise is not encouraging. There have been multiple instances across the industry of companies guaranteeing on-device processing only for that data to appear in breach disclosures afterward. Closed, proprietary systems cannot be independently verified. We're being asked to trust the architecture of companies whose entire business model is built on data extraction.
There's also a false positive problem. Google has already implemented similar detection and there are confirmed cases of users having their entire Google accounts permanently locked after photographing their own child in the bath. Emails, photos, Drive, business files, income streams, all gone, with no meaningful appeals process. The harm from a false positive in a system like this isn't a minor inconvenience, it's potentially catastrophic and irreversible.
And then there's the infrastructure problem. The Patriot Act is, once again, the prime example. You build the architecture for one stated purpose and then it gets legislated into something broader. Age verification is the live example happening right now. It started as self-attestation. That wasn't sufficient so it became on-device ID verification. That wasn't sufficient so it became third party trusted providers. Private vendors like Persona and kID. Both of which have had documented breaches after promising on-device verification themselves. This is literally the documented trajectory of every surveillance infrastructure built in the name of protection.
It's never a matter of if they legislate it further. It's when. And who profits from the expanded version.