4 ms·

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

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.
      - mlindner 7y ago
        Who watches the watchers? Who prevents the watchers from deleting footage/recordings? Unless you're genetically engineering humans to no longer have any desires, anyone can be bribed or blackmailed for the right price.
        anon9001 7y ago
        Other watchers would watch those watchers. Government officials would not be exempt from data collection. People would eventually learn that you can't bribe or blackmail because it's impossible to do without having it recorded and detected by surveillance. That's how our system of government works today, but the only people who get caught are those that leave evidence behind. If you use technology to ensure everyone creates tons of evidence, then everyone doing something illegal can be caught. I'm not sure why I'm being so heavily downvoted, the only difference between the dystopian future that I describe and the system we have currently, is that the government isn't collecting and processing data on such a wide scale. If they collect more data, we will have more crimes solved and more privacy forfeited. If you take that to its logical extreme, we have full surveillance, no privacy, and no crime. I'd rather live in a world where we have some crime, but privacy and no surveillance, but I think it's far more likely we'll head in the opposite direction.
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.

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.
    - mlindner 7y ago
      Who watches the watchers? Who prevents the watchers from deleting footage/recordings? Unless you're genetically engineering humans to no longer have any desires, anyone can be bribed or blackmailed for the right price.
      - anon9001 7y ago
        Other watchers would watch those watchers. Government officials would not be exempt from data collection. People would eventually learn that you can't bribe or blackmail because it's impossible to do without having it recorded and detected by surveillance. That's how our system of government works today, but the only people who get caught are those that leave evidence behind. If you use technology to ensure everyone creates tons of evidence, then everyone doing something illegal can be caught. I'm not sure why I'm being so heavily downvoted, the only difference between the dystopian future that I describe and the system we have currently, is that the government isn't collecting and processing data on such a wide scale. If they collect more data, we will have more crimes solved and more privacy forfeited. If you take that to its logical extreme, we have full surveillance, no privacy, and no crime. I'd rather live in a world where we have some crime, but privacy and no surveillance, but I think it's far more likely we'll head in the opposite direction.

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.