> Don't you think the level of policing required to actually find people who possess CSAM wouldn't also be a massive overreach?
Obviously. Criminalizing possession of data is dumb. It's essentially a declaration that some numbers are illegal. It's the exact same problem faced by copyright. Any attempt to actually enforce these laws at scale will be a massive overreach to the point of tyranny. They are incompatible with the computing freedom we enjoy today.
I don't buy this argument because you can make any law sound silly by reducing it to something absurd. Saying that that the benefit isn't worth the trade in freedom is totally valid but the quip about illegal numbers isn't super persuasive.
"Criminalizing possession of nuclear weapons is dumb, it's essentially a declaration that some molecules are illegal."
"Criminalizing hate speech is dumb, it's essentially a declaration that certain combinations of sound frequencies are illegal."
"Criminalization of murder is dumb, it's essentially a declaration that I certain locations where I store my bullets are illegal."
It sounds absurd because it is absurd. Think about the absolute control that would be necessary in order to stop our computers from working with arbitrary data. Obviously this logic cannot be applied to the physical world.
Obviously. Criminalizing possession of data is dumb. It's essentially a declaration that some numbers are illegal. It's the exact same problem faced by copyright. Any attempt to actually enforce these laws at scale will be a massive overreach to the point of tyranny. They are incompatible with the computing freedom we enjoy today.