5 ms·

I'm not sure what the logical fallacy is you're referring to. I'm not advocating that we backdoor encryption. I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime p

I'm not sure what the logical fallacy is you're referring to. I'm not advocating that we backdoor encryption. I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. I guess your position is one of an absolute, and therefore, to me, not especially interesting. I am curious what you think are the ways we can fight child abuse. It seems to me we have some obligation as technologists to see that our works aren't used to harm the most vulnerable.

ilovetux 7y ago
I believe the trade-off for privacy has traditionally been done on a case-by-case basis through the use of search warrants. I don't see anything wrong with the use of warrants. If there is reasonable suspicion the police can investigate further, it's sensible. Now we are seeing multiple instances where scapegoats and boogeymen are being used to systematically strip our rights away. The worst part of the whole thing is that when I attempt to fight for my privacy, I would be seen as supporting child pornography. It is an insidious tactic that is unreasonably effective.
danShumway 7y ago
> I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. This is the whole problem. There _is_ nuance. Users can still report content, even if it's private. Automated detection systems can still run client-side. Public forums like Facebook itself are still targetable, and we can increase funding and counseling for moderators in those public spaces to reduce turnover. Barr is the one here saying that, "mere numbers" aren't enough to talk about the problem. How exactly are we supposed to compromise with that? What exactly is a 'nuanced' response to the argument that any system that allows even one child to be abused is unacceptable? Barr isn't going to be happy unless law enforcement can read every single message. And he's going to trot out the same arguments every single time. And every time we respond, somebody is going to be jumping in to say, "but why can't we just have a little nuance? Why are all of you so dogmatic about this?"
tomp 7y ago
> I guess your position is one of an absolute, and therefore, to me, not especially interesting. Every position is absolute. Either you have 100% user privacy, or you 100% don't have user privacy. People pretend that the latter option can potentially include "checks and balances" and whatnot, but Snowden showed us how that plays out in reality...
Kalium 7y ago
> I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. If someone has an idea that can help prevent abuses and protect privacy without enabling abusive governments, I'm all ears. Unfortunately, to date all we've seen are proposals like the Clipper chip which amount to a backdoor to everything. Understandably, experts are somewhat skeptical of replaying the experience. > I am curious what you think are the ways we can fight child abuse. It seems to me we have some obligation as technologists to see that our works aren't used to harm the most vulnerable. You are absolutely right. Absolutely, complete, perfectly correct in every way. Yet, might it be possible that cryptography is not the right context for this discussion? Perhaps there are other tools better suited to the question at hand that do not have the same ugly record of pervasive invasions of privacy? I would love to discuss those! Do you have any suggestions as to where we might start? This seems like a question best posed to the people on the front lines of this effort - what do they think they need? The rest is so much second-guessing.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  The ability for the citizenry to oversee and monitor the government should be required to be higher then the ability for government to oversee and monitor the citizenry. Do away with the veil of secrecy over government entirely (no NSA, no CIA, so secret ongoing investigation, no privacy for meetings among politicians, etc); that would slow abuse to the point where maybe we could trust the government to keep an eye on us. I would personally even go one further and say that anyone or anything beyond a certain level of power should be radically transparent, and privacy should be reserved for the weak. If you want some privacy, step down from power and influence, and donate your money, because transparency is the only way we can even start to wield democracy properly and prevent the gross abuses of power we see in our society.
  - esyir 7y ago
    This is absolutely ridiculous, and a fantastic way to cede all power to opposing nation-states.
  - quonn 7y ago
    Meetings need to be private, otherwise everyone will self-censor all the time and no meaningful discussions are possible anymore. Like, thinking through the opposite point of view for example. Quotes will be taken out of context and published by the media.
soraminazuki 7y ago
> I'm not advocating that we backdoor encryption. I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. I guess your position is one of an absolute, and therefore, to me, not especially interesting. What's your point? We can either give governments backdoor access, or we don't. It's disingenuous to suggest that there's some sort of "middle ground" and pretend to care about privacy. > I am curious what you think are the ways we can fight child abuse. It seems to me we have some obligation as technologists to see that our works aren't used to harm the most vulnerable. How about traditional targeted investigations requiring a warrant? I don't see any reason for technologists to enable mass surveillance.

ilovetux 7y ago

I believe the trade-off for privacy has traditionally been done on a case-by-case basis through the use of search warrants. I don't see anything wrong with the use of warrants. If there is reasonable suspicion the police can investigate further, it's sensible. Now we are seeing multiple instances where scapegoats and boogeymen are being used to systematically strip our rights away. The worst part of the whole thing is that when I attempt to fight for my privacy, I would be seen as supporting child pornography. It is an insidious tactic that is unreasonably effective.

danShumway 7y ago

> I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. This is the whole problem. There _is_ nuance. Users can still report content, even if it's private. Automated detection systems can still run client-side. Public forums like Facebook itself are still targetable, and we can increase funding and counseling for moderators in those public spaces to reduce turnover. Barr is the one here saying that, "mere numbers" aren't enough to talk about the problem. How exactly are we supposed to compromise with that? What exactly is a 'nuanced' response to the argument that any system that allows even one child to be abused is unacceptable? Barr isn't going to be happy unless law enforcement can read every single message. And he's going to trot out the same arguments every single time. And every time we respond, somebody is going to be jumping in to say, "but why can't we just have a little nuance? Why are all of you so dogmatic about this?"

tomp 7y ago

> I guess your position is one of an absolute, and therefore, to me, not especially interesting. Every position is absolute. Either you have 100% user privacy, or you 100% don't have user privacy. People pretend that the latter option can potentially include "checks and balances" and whatnot, but Snowden showed us how that plays out in reality...

Kalium 7y ago

> I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. If someone has an idea that can help prevent abuses and protect privacy without enabling abusive governments, I'm all ears. Unfortunately, to date all we've seen are proposals like the Clipper chip which amount to a backdoor to everything. Understandably, experts are somewhat skeptical of replaying the experience. > I am curious what you think are the ways we can fight child abuse. It seems to me we have some obligation as technologists to see that our works aren't used to harm the most vulnerable. You are absolutely right. Absolutely, complete, perfectly correct in every way. Yet, might it be possible that cryptography is not the right context for this discussion? Perhaps there are other tools better suited to the question at hand that do not have the same ugly record of pervasive invasions of privacy? I would love to discuss those! Do you have any suggestions as to where we might start? This seems like a question best posed to the people on the front lines of this effort - what do they think they need? The rest is so much second-guessing.

kazagistar 7y ago
The ability for the citizenry to oversee and monitor the government should be required to be higher then the ability for government to oversee and monitor the citizenry. Do away with the veil of secrecy over government entirely (no NSA, no CIA, so secret ongoing investigation, no privacy for meetings among politicians, etc); that would slow abuse to the point where maybe we could trust the government to keep an eye on us. I would personally even go one further and say that anyone or anything beyond a certain level of power should be radically transparent, and privacy should be reserved for the weak. If you want some privacy, step down from power and influence, and donate your money, because transparency is the only way we can even start to wield democracy properly and prevent the gross abuses of power we see in our society.
- esyir 7y ago
  This is absolutely ridiculous, and a fantastic way to cede all power to opposing nation-states.
- quonn 7y ago
  Meetings need to be private, otherwise everyone will self-censor all the time and no meaningful discussions are possible anymore. Like, thinking through the opposite point of view for example. Quotes will be taken out of context and published by the media.

soraminazuki 7y ago

> I'm not advocating that we backdoor encryption. I'm asking what's the nuance in privacy vs crime prevention. I guess your position is one of an absolute, and therefore, to me, not especially interesting. What's your point? We can either give governments backdoor access, or we don't. It's disingenuous to suggest that there's some sort of "middle ground" and pretend to care about privacy. > I am curious what you think are the ways we can fight child abuse. It seems to me we have some obligation as technologists to see that our works aren't used to harm the most vulnerable. How about traditional targeted investigations requiring a warrant? I don't see any reason for technologists to enable mass surveillance.