A group of academics who work in the tech space wrote a letter in which they criticised an EU proposal for a new Regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse on the internet. Essentially they thought the whole thing was ill-conceived and ought to be withdrawn.
Here is the bit that set me wondering if everyone who signed the letter had actually read it before allowing their name to be linked with it:
“As scientists, we do not expect that it will be feasible in the next 10-20 years to develop a scalable solution….in a reliable way….
Mark that word: “scientists”.
Not clairvoyants. They did not resort to reading tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. Although if they did the result they came up with might not have been noticeably different.
On the internet and with digital tech they say 6 months is a long time. The world can turn upside down in weeks or months and it often has.
Undeterred and unembarrassed by this, however, and with no hint of humility, qualification or reservation, let alone evidence, Madame Zsa Zsa and her cohorts tell us it’s “10-20 years”. Such precision. Or do I mean lack of it?
It smells of ideologically motivated wishful thinking. The signatories have used faux “scientific” authority to try to make a point that cannot be made because it has no substance. Scaremongering hyperbole. A cheap shot. That backfired. Badly.
But enough of this: if you want to read a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal – actually, “destruction” is probably a better word – then just read the blog published by the Technical Director at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. He never drinks tea.
Desiderata 