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.’"

>>TZubir+RT4
I do not know why it’s so difficult for you to engage in good faith.

The same reasoning you use for extortion applies to many other systems we have today. Should we abolish them because they have failures?

>>reliab+fZ4
You are ascribing thoughts to me (and root comment) that I have not expressed. I recommend that you reread the thread and separate what is being explicitly said, and what you believe is implicitly said.

Then reread it with only the explicit meanings in my and root comment: we are talking about the consequences of the law without making any comment on the morals, probably because we are network admins that see this news as input and we are not lawmakers that see it as output.

I hope that by rereading the comments in this light, communication might be improved.