zlacker

>>mmaria+(OP)
Phishing for material for sextortion has never been more trivial. The implementation of this is going to lead to mass fraud. Walk into parliament, ask who is willing to go to jail in defense of the act if and when the first lot of randy pensioners are bankrupted, or kid commits suicide out of shame - and if no one raises their hand, repeal it.

>>reedf1+db4
It seems that your argument is more about the way the verification is implemented and not about the idea of verification by itself.

>>reliab+wl4
The only property of the implementation necessary for sextortion to happen is that it will be imperfect, at least once. Which is guaranteed.

>>TZubir+hD4
It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist.

However, no systems are fault free. Whether we are talking about computing systems, mechanical systems, or societal ones.

Sometimes police can arrest an innocent person before they realize the mistake and release them.

Should we stop policing completely? Or maybe the right question to ask is “how do we minimize the chance for police to make mistakes?”. Note, these are two separate issues:

1. Do we need the police at all?

2. How do we make police to not arrest innocent people all the time?

>>reliab+KM4
"It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist"

"When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"