Regards #Article13, I wrote up a little command-line false-positive emulator; it tests 10 million events with a test (for copyrighted material, abusive material, whatever) that is 99.5% accurate, with a rate of 1-in-10,000 items actually being bad.
For that scenario - all of which inputs are tuneable - you can see that we'd typically be making about 50,000 people very upset, by miscategorising them as copyright thieves or perpetrators of abuse:
But let's vary the stats: @neilturkewitz is pushing a 2017 post by very respected fellow geek and expert @paulvixie in which Paul speaks encouragingly about a 1-to-2% error rate; let's split the difference, use 1.5% errors, ie: 98.5% accuracy: circleid.com/posts/20170420…
Today is a challenge - on and off for the next 12 hours, now that the GDPR dust is settling, I am going to try and Tweet about nothing but the #EUCopyrightDirective - BECAUSE, YE GODS, YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS:
If you would like an authoritative voice regards why we YOU need to act to get the EU to #DeleteArt13 - to avoid the Internet and Web being swamped with a "Link Tax", here is the perspective of German Euro-MP, Julia Reda: juliareda.eu/2018/05/censor…
Quote: «We have recently upgraded our link security infrastructure to include HSTS preloading, which automatically upgrades HTTP links to HTTPS for eligible websites. This will improve people's security and will also often improve the speed of navigation to sites from Facebook.»
It would be an interesting academic exercise to cross-reference this mechanism against the crowdsourced (and slightly hairy/flaky) HTTPS-Everywhere list from the likes of @EFF :-
The piece runs thusly (via Google Translate) - and it conflates the abuse-reporting mechanism with the "Franking" mechanism that "Secret Conversations" uses, and which (a) @matthew_d_green helped design and (b) is fully documented.
The Franking mechanism is designed to support abuse-reporting: if Alice receives abusive material (eg: unwanted dick-pics) then she may want to report them to Facebook... but (given the nature of E2E) how can we trust Alice not to make a bogus report to incriminate Bob?
The more I read and understand about #GDPR, the more I feel it was drafted by lawyers whose concept of "data" is akin to "human tissue samples" - discrete, attributable to a single individual, identifiable, not prone to proliferate…
And they've never heard of Henrietta Lacks.
Before someone reads Wikipedia and plays the "Neither Henrietta Lacks nor her family gave her physicians permission to harvest her cells"—card, yes, but that's not what I am getting at.
What I am saying is that I sense a clash of models: tidy-minded political people who believe that data moves around like a <thing> in a bottle… rather than what actually happens, of leaving copies of itself behind, whenever it starts moving.