It would be an egregious error to believe that the law was thus written in a moment of shortsightedness. This is intentional weaponisation. Wrongspeak and thought crimes are here.
Just an update. One of the Senators shared a portion of the legal analysis that was prepared for the government on Section 10 of this new bill.
The analysis is quite interesting, and I am working on a post to explain as I dig through it.
So far it looks like they completely missed this “attack vector” for misuse of the bill. I think on the basis of the analysis supplied that the general public may have *slightly* less to worry about from this bill… the problem I see is that the only way to defend against someone trying to frame you may actually be to lie and claim the information planted on you was for personal use, so to minimise risk of jail, you would have to accept reputation damage
However I believe the “attack vector” actually remains completely valid if one wanted to decimate a political party or even the whole democratic system and had a few thousand Euro, a loyal group of about 200 co-conspirators and a nerdy teenager to wire up the AI tech. This is because this “attack vector” includes a (fake) demonstration of intent to distribute thereby removing the ability to claim personal use only, given that all but one of your witnesses also have possession with (fake) intent to distribute (the fake audio recording could include something like “take three cards each to give to people you think can be recruited” and thus with everyone having 3 cards planted on them the argument goes… and anyway, why would you have more than one card with the same content *unless* you planned to distribute)
It would be an egregious error to believe that the law was thus written in a moment of shortsightedness. This is intentional weaponisation. Wrongspeak and thought crimes are here.
Just an update. One of the Senators shared a portion of the legal analysis that was prepared for the government on Section 10 of this new bill.
The analysis is quite interesting, and I am working on a post to explain as I dig through it.
So far it looks like they completely missed this “attack vector” for misuse of the bill. I think on the basis of the analysis supplied that the general public may have *slightly* less to worry about from this bill… the problem I see is that the only way to defend against someone trying to frame you may actually be to lie and claim the information planted on you was for personal use, so to minimise risk of jail, you would have to accept reputation damage
However I believe the “attack vector” actually remains completely valid if one wanted to decimate a political party or even the whole democratic system and had a few thousand Euro, a loyal group of about 200 co-conspirators and a nerdy teenager to wire up the AI tech. This is because this “attack vector” includes a (fake) demonstration of intent to distribute thereby removing the ability to claim personal use only, given that all but one of your witnesses also have possession with (fake) intent to distribute (the fake audio recording could include something like “take three cards each to give to people you think can be recruited” and thus with everyone having 3 cards planted on them the argument goes… and anyway, why would you have more than one card with the same content *unless* you planned to distribute)