4 ms·
> Note, this article is recent and highly relevant.. Talk about fear mongering, that article is horrible. It's the same old argument. "Child abuse is bad there
by leshow 7y ago
> Note, this article is recent and highly relevant..
Talk about fear mongering, that article is horrible. It's the same old argument. "Child abuse is bad therefore you can't have any privacy", they position you as being against protecting children when your stance is actually pro security & privacy.
- SamBam 7y agoI think that reasonable people can hold both f̶a̶c̶t̶s̶ things in their heads at the same time 1. Privacy is important and good 2. It has almost certainly contributed to an explosion in the production and sharing of child pornography and abuse The question is what is the moral way to reconcile the two, not to deny that either exists.
- lonelappde 7y agoNeither of those two things are facts. One is an opinion, and the other is speculation.
- cameronbrown 7y agoWhen did GP specify he was talking about facts?
- SamBam 7y agoI edited my comment from "facts" to "things," which was actually what I meant. Apologies. I'll clarify, so as not to disparage the person who replied.
- swagonomixxx 7y agoGreat points. It definitely seems to me that those two are fundamentally opposites. Suppose we champion (1), then with perfect privacy gives a lot of leeway for criminals to commit crimes such as those you stated and more without being able to detect that they did them. However, without perfect privacy, every world citizen would be subjected to such monitoring, and we'll basically be exactly what 1984 is, with the metaphorical "telescreen" functionality spread across pretty much every device that's connected to a network.
- saagarjha 7y agoThey’re not complete opposites, since criminals don’t always have perfect privacy: they leave other evidence that can be discovered with a warrant. On the flip side, mass surveillance will just create selective enforcement.
- concordDance 7y agoVery unconvinced it's lead to an explosion is child abuse. Child abuse has always been happening (several of the older members of my family were abused), it just wasn't broadcasted. Even today I bet 99% of child abuse is never caught on camera. The increase from child porn is probably negligible.
- SamBam 7y agoIf you actually read the article above, you can see that there's actually now lots of new evidence that viewing child porn makes people more likely to commit abuse, and that it seems to be a causal relationship, not a "marijuana is a gateway drug" relationship.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- concordDance 7y agoI couldn't find that in the article and would be immensely skeptical of such a claim (how on earth would you establish causation as opposed to common cause?).
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y agoThe article never makes the argument you're objecting to. It merely states that E2E is likely to allow certain crimes to avoid detection. That seems both plausible as well as empirically correct considering their whatsapp/messenger comparison.
- spsful 7y agoExactly. I see it from those exact same perspectives. The USA took steps to actually protect property in its founding, something the Supreme Court has interpreted to include privacy as well. From this perspective, the rights of citizens wither away when the government is allowed to take the smallest step towards mass surveillance. For that reason I am very much against it. My other perspective is from a security standpoint. I believe that if companies are not doing everything in their power to protect themselves and their users from data loss / hacking / theft, they put everyone at risk. Intentionally lessening the security of a product at the request of the US government means giving a potential thief or hacker more attack vectors to exploit.