论文标题
Yasm(又是另一种监视机制)
YASM (Yet Another Surveillance Mechanism)
论文作者
论文摘要
客户端扫描(CSS)参见儿童性虐待材料检测(CSAMD)代表无处不在的大规模扫描。苹果提议扫描其系统以获取此类图像。此后,CSAMD被推迟了,但欧盟决定提议强迫CSS对抗和防止儿童性虐待并削弱加密。 CSS是对个人财产,图片和文本的大规模监视,而无需考虑隐私和网络安全和法律。我们首先争论为什么应限制或不使用CSS,并讨论图片通过密码的处理方式以及CSAMD如何保留隐私的问题。在第二部分中,我们分析了CSS总体上可能在《欧洲人权公约》政权中造成的可能侵犯人权行为。重点是系统可能对个人造成的伤害,我们还对拟议的虐待儿童法规发表评论。我们发现CSS是有问题的,因为它们很少实现其目的,如Antivirus Software所见。试图解决诸如CSAM之类的问题的成本大于收益,并且不太可能发生变化。拟议的CSAMD不太可能以所描述的来源材料的方式保留隐私或安全性。我们还发现,一般而言,CSS可能侵犯了公正审判的权利,隐私权和言论自由的权利。图片本可以以某种方式获得对合法肇事者进行任何审判的方式获得的,或侵犯了公正审判的权利,缺乏任何在国家法律层面上保护隐私的保障措施,这违反了隐私权,并且不清楚这种扫描是否可以通过法律测试,这是否需要表达自由。最后,我们发现了拟议的法规的重大问题,因为它依赖于技术主义者的论点,而无视网络安全的知识。
Client-Side Scanning (CSS) see in the Child Sexual Abuse Material Detection (CSAMD) represent ubiquitous mass scanning. Apple proposed to scan their systems for such imagery. CSAMD was since pushed back, but the European Union decided to propose forced CSS to combat and prevent child sexual abuse and weaken encryption. CSS is mass surveillance of personal property, pictures and text, without considerations of privacy and cybersecurity and the law. We first argue why CSS should be limited or not used and discuss issues with the way pictures cryptographically are handled and how the CSAMD preserves privacy. In the second part, we analyse the possible human rights violations which CSS in general can cause within the regime of the European Convention on Human Rights. The focus is the harm which the system may cause to individuals, and we also comment on the proposed Child Abuse Regulation. We find that CSS is problematic because they can rarely fulfil their purposes, as seen with antivirus software. The costs for attempting to solve issues such as CSAM outweigh the benefits and is not likely to change. The CSAMD as proposed is not likely to preserve the privacy or security in the way of which it is described source materials. We also find that CSS in general would likely violate the Right to a Fair Trial, Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression. Pictures could have been obtained in a way that could make any trial against a legitimate perpetrator inadmissible or violate their right for a fair trial, the lack of any safeguards to protect privacy on national legal level, which would violate the Right for Privacy, and it is unclear if the kind of scanning could pass the legal test which Freedom of Expression requires. Finally, we find significant issues with the proposed Regulation, as it relies on techno-solutionist arguments and disregards knowledge on cybersecurity.