Because some things like terrorism and child sex abuse are harms to society as a whole, and even private individuals have an obligation to help combat them. Durov has a service where by design it's hard to filter out that kind of activity, and he's effectively (if not explicitly) helping protect that activity.
No because HP printers *do* print tracking marks to allow law enforcement to match a printout to a printer if they find abuse material that's been printed.
I find it amazing that this is used as an example of a good thing.
A few decades ago, one of the factoids about USSR was that they required all typewriters to be registered with the state, with a sample page produced for every unit manufactured so that the state could track their use (this last bit is unlikely to be true, but was widely believed). That was supposed to be a case in point on why free societies are better, not an example to follow.
I was pointing out that the GP's strawman was really immaterial because HP don't get sued/arrested because they comply with law enforcement (at the expense of user privacy).
Since I know better than to use a printer in the commission of a crime, it doesn't really affect me, but I'm aware that the majority of users consider it a privacy violation.
> So is France going to arrest the owners of HP, because their printers can't filter out CSAM?
A more comparable example, is France going to arrest someone who maintains a printer in an office and knows an employee is printing CSAM but doing nothing about it?
I hope they would, this is the boat Telegram is in.
If you think one person printing out CSAM on a printer one page at a time is the same as running a service that facilitates tens of thousands of people to trade CSAM, there's nothing I can say to explain it to you.
