7 ms·

I hate these requests for government back doors into tech communication software in the name of "the children". Let the parents worry about and protect their ow

by eloff 7y ago

I hate these requests for government back doors into tech communication software in the name of "the children". Let the parents worry about and protect their own children. Let the government mind its own business and stay out of ours.

robrenaud 7y ago
And if the parents are the abusers, then it's okay? I am still pro E2E encryption, especially given the Snowden revelations (the US gov cannot be trusted to be responsible), but it does come at a high cost. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
- eloff 7y ago
  That's a really horrible situation, but running an information drag net on the entire world is the wrong way to crack down on that kind of crime.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  We could solve a lot of those problems if we put a camera, or quartered a soldier, in every home.
  - giggles_giggles 7y ago
    Not often I get to invoke the 3rd Amendment. Get out of here, you Loyalist!
- mlindner 7y ago
  The thought that people can remove all crime or get anywhere near it is faulty from first axioms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." If you start thinking that parents "can be" the criminals then you've decided that parents are automatically guilty and must be proved innocent. This goes against the very moral fiber of the entire western world theory of law, the presumption of innocence.
  - anon9001 7y ago
    How is the idea that we can remove all crime faulty? Blackstone is just saying that we shouldn't try to remove all crime because it's more harmful to society to try than to let some crimes go unsolved. His main argument is that there might be an ambiguous situation where someone appears guilty but actually is not guilty. It's definitely possible to eliminate all crime with total surveillance with a high degree of accuracy. We probably shouldn't, especially not without being able to quickly update our laws, but it could be done. Imagine if anyone going over the speed limit was instantly charged a fine. We can do that today with complete accuracy, but we choose not to do enforcement that way.
    - therwey 7y ago
      > It's definitely possible to eliminate all crime with total surveillance with a high degree of accuracy. Unless the state itself is criminal. Not only can law stray from morality, authorities of the state can even violate the laws of that state itself. If you can imagine an extreme authoritarian state with a constitution, can't you also imagine that the leaders of that state choosing to ignore that constitution? But before even getting into the above, you've assumed the possibility of perfect surveillance. Who or what and how could that ever be possible? The only way I can conceive of perfect law enforcement is to have very few if any laws. Everything else is an excuse for the personal fancies of authoritarians.
      - anon9001 7y ago
        All phones could be mandated to record audio/video at all times and stream it to government servers for archiving and processing, for example. And you could set up society so that you'd be useless without carrying your phone, as we're most of the way there already. Not streaming your complete data to the government would become a crime. All public places could be recorded in a similar way. If you combined it with satellite tracking of the whole planet, you could even identify people that have chosen to go off the grid for some period of time, so you could solve crimes that happened in the forest if you want. That's pretty close to perfect surveillance. I can't think of a crime that couldn't be solved this way, but it's not a society where I'd want to live.
- driverdan 7y ago
  How would E2E encryption help catch parents who abuse their kids? It might help in a minority of cases where they stupidly discuss it or share images but that's a small fraction of abusers. Certainly not enough to justify blocking encryption.
xenocyon 7y ago
As a parent, I reject this disingenuous pretense of concern for "the children". Folks are eager to invoke children to justify the surveillance state while conveniently forgetting the plight of children when it comes to concentration camps, poverty, and climate change. Secondly, children themselves have frequently been the victim of surveillance abuses and there is no reason to suspect that this instance will be any different.
- adfgadfasa 7y ago
  Yeah considering the profoundly terrible conditions in the concentration camps this administration is holding children in, this seems a littlllleeee disingenuous.
  - outoftheabyss 7y ago
    This administration? Is that singular?
    - adfgadfasa 7y ago
      I'm not interested in getting into a slapfight about who was worse, but I think it's pretty clear that _The Trump Administration_ is treating Southern American migrants purposefully poorly. I know you're trying to point out some supposed hypocrisy for not criticizing Obama or Clinton or something, so I'll let you know I think they too enacted unforgivable political violence. Happy? People exist outside the Republican/Democrat spectrum.
      - outoftheabyss 7y ago
        Yes, just convenient how silent those people are in certain unforgivable situations, until it comes to retrospect of course
        adfgadfasa 7y ago
        You're purposefully misrepresenting the left to stroke your ego. People were extremely critical of Obama during his terms. Stop JAQing off and stuff your crypto-fascist views up your ass you Trump slurping gonorrhea nodule. inb4 "Leftists can't have civil discussions"

by eloff 7y ago

robrenaud 7y ago

And if the parents are the abusers, then it's okay? I am still pro E2E encryption, especially given the Snowden revelations (the US gov cannot be trusted to be responsible), but it does come at a high cost. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...

eloff 7y ago
That's a really horrible situation, but running an information drag net on the entire world is the wrong way to crack down on that kind of crime.
heavyset_go 7y ago
We could solve a lot of those problems if we put a camera, or quartered a soldier, in every home.
- giggles_giggles 7y ago
  Not often I get to invoke the 3rd Amendment. Get out of here, you Loyalist!
mlindner 7y ago
The thought that people can remove all crime or get anywhere near it is faulty from first axioms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." If you start thinking that parents "can be" the criminals then you've decided that parents are automatically guilty and must be proved innocent. This goes against the very moral fiber of the entire western world theory of law, the presumption of innocence.
- anon9001 7y ago
  How is the idea that we can remove all crime faulty? Blackstone is just saying that we shouldn't try to remove all crime because it's more harmful to society to try than to let some crimes go unsolved. His main argument is that there might be an ambiguous situation where someone appears guilty but actually is not guilty. It's definitely possible to eliminate all crime with total surveillance with a high degree of accuracy. We probably shouldn't, especially not without being able to quickly update our laws, but it could be done. Imagine if anyone going over the speed limit was instantly charged a fine. We can do that today with complete accuracy, but we choose not to do enforcement that way.
  - therwey 7y ago
    > It's definitely possible to eliminate all crime with total surveillance with a high degree of accuracy. Unless the state itself is criminal. Not only can law stray from morality, authorities of the state can even violate the laws of that state itself. If you can imagine an extreme authoritarian state with a constitution, can't you also imagine that the leaders of that state choosing to ignore that constitution? But before even getting into the above, you've assumed the possibility of perfect surveillance. Who or what and how could that ever be possible? The only way I can conceive of perfect law enforcement is to have very few if any laws. Everything else is an excuse for the personal fancies of authoritarians.
    - anon9001 7y ago
      All phones could be mandated to record audio/video at all times and stream it to government servers for archiving and processing, for example. And you could set up society so that you'd be useless without carrying your phone, as we're most of the way there already. Not streaming your complete data to the government would become a crime. All public places could be recorded in a similar way. If you combined it with satellite tracking of the whole planet, you could even identify people that have chosen to go off the grid for some period of time, so you could solve crimes that happened in the forest if you want. That's pretty close to perfect surveillance. I can't think of a crime that couldn't be solved this way, but it's not a society where I'd want to live.
driverdan 7y ago
How would E2E encryption help catch parents who abuse their kids? It might help in a minority of cases where they stupidly discuss it or share images but that's a small fraction of abusers. Certainly not enough to justify blocking encryption.

xenocyon 7y ago

As a parent, I reject this disingenuous pretense of concern for "the children". Folks are eager to invoke children to justify the surveillance state while conveniently forgetting the plight of children when it comes to concentration camps, poverty, and climate change. Secondly, children themselves have frequently been the victim of surveillance abuses and there is no reason to suspect that this instance will be any different.

adfgadfasa 7y ago
Yeah considering the profoundly terrible conditions in the concentration camps this administration is holding children in, this seems a littlllleeee disingenuous.
- outoftheabyss 7y ago
  This administration? Is that singular?
  - adfgadfasa 7y ago
    I'm not interested in getting into a slapfight about who was worse, but I think it's pretty clear that _The Trump Administration_ is treating Southern American migrants purposefully poorly. I know you're trying to point out some supposed hypocrisy for not criticizing Obama or Clinton or something, so I'll let you know I think they too enacted unforgivable political violence. Happy? People exist outside the Republican/Democrat spectrum.
    - outoftheabyss 7y ago
      Yes, just convenient how silent those people are in certain unforgivable situations, until it comes to retrospect of course
      - adfgadfasa 7y ago
        You're purposefully misrepresenting the left to stroke your ego. People were extremely critical of Obama during his terms. Stop JAQing off and stuff your crypto-fascist views up your ass you Trump slurping gonorrhea nodule. inb4 "Leftists can't have civil discussions"