3 ms·

Well, why bring privacy into the fray at all? I'm not saying online systems for catching child abuse can't be implemented. But is it really where our efforts w

Well, why bring privacy into the fray at all? I'm not saying online systems for catching child abuse can't be implemented. But is it really where our efforts would be most effective? The question should be: how do you combat child abuse? For that, we need: 1- Strong reporting systems that connect the people who in contact with children (doctors, teachers, social workers) and centralize and distribute that information. Right now, a social worker doesn't know about the doctor or teacher reports very easily. 2- Then, we need strong systems for handling the situation: i.e. social workers with effective systems for intervention. 3- Then, we need strong systems to take the children that are removed from at risk situations and place them in safe places where they can recover and grow in a healthy environment. This is the foster care system and the national health care system (or lack thereof) that will provide mental health counseling for the affected children. Given that 1, 2 and 3 of these systems are terribly dysfunctional if not mostly broken, I'm always skeptical when people talk about social media and child protection. The situation gives me a feeling of leaders justifying the erosion of privacy and those who are authoritarian inclined supporting them, rather than people really caring about protecting children.

scott_s 7y ago
The tension between privacy and child abuse is laid out in the linked NYT piece (which I also recommend reading): many of the images and videos of child sex abuse are created because they can be shared. They can be shared because the creators have some confidence they can do so without getting caught. Once the content is discovered, the authorities also have a difficult time finding that child, who may still be in danger. This situation is orthogonal to the (very necessary) steps you outlined.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Is it? I just read the NYT article. Maybe I'm missing something, but it clearly states that the main issues saving children are a lack of enforcement availability (i.e. the 3 points mentioned in my comment) and the lack of timely cooperation of existing orders. Then they talk about how 'some criminals' hide behind encryption. So... we have a situation where many cases are reported but aren't followed up on. Yet we focus on getting more reporting by undermining the right of non criminals? Doesn't seem very logical to me. The whole piece even undermines their own arguments. They mention the 'case of the Love Zone'... which was cracked by investigators finding clues the old fashioned way. Not drag net surveillance. The article also places many issues that aren't tech related as tech problems. It says "Bing was said to regularly submit reports that lacked essential information, making investigations difficult" Let's compare that line to offline: If I own a pizza parlor where pedo's hang out sometimes, and I find a picture of CP in a restroom and hand it in to the authorities or call them up, would you blame the Pizza Parlor for the lack of fingerprints on the pictures? Would you think it's ok then to make wearing gloves illegal? I mean, if people use gloves, pedos can use gloves and hide their fingerprints. Why not target gloves? There is a real issue: Child Abuse. There are real solutions that are complex and extremely resource intensive. A report doesn't create a case. Focusing on tech and the lack of having MORE drag net surveillance seems absurd. This is coming from someone who grew up with abuse. When I go to forums to discuss abuse (it helps me deal with what happened) almost everyone tells of times that the abuse was reported but not well investigated. In fact, I've known people who work in CPS and they almost universally say the system is broken. A child in my city was recently beat to death by his step dad... an CPS had been called on them multiple times. We could be focusing on fixing that (you know, the things the people on the front line say are wrong). But no. Drag net surveillance is the thing we should focus on apparently (even though in the very article you mention it states we have more current reporting than we have resources to deal with it)
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    I know a number of teachers, and there are quite strict mandatory reporting policies for when child abuse is even suspected. The reality is that the organizations responsible for looking into these reports of abuse only have enough resources to investigate those where the child's life is in immediate danger. The venn diagrams of "internet chat surveillance" and 'solutions to the problems of child abuse" are mutually exclusive. Politicians are grossly morally corrupt to use child abuse as an argument against encryption when they're the ones controlling the purse strings for Child Services-type organizations. Feathering their own nests at the cost of actual, real progress on protecting children from abuse.

scott_s 7y ago

The tension between privacy and child abuse is laid out in the linked NYT piece (which I also recommend reading): many of the images and videos of child sex abuse are created because they can be shared. They can be shared because the creators have some confidence they can do so without getting caught. Once the content is discovered, the authorities also have a difficult time finding that child, who may still be in danger. This situation is orthogonal to the (very necessary) steps you outlined.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Is it? I just read the NYT article. Maybe I'm missing something, but it clearly states that the main issues saving children are a lack of enforcement availability (i.e. the 3 points mentioned in my comment) and the lack of timely cooperation of existing orders. Then they talk about how 'some criminals' hide behind encryption. So... we have a situation where many cases are reported but aren't followed up on. Yet we focus on getting more reporting by undermining the right of non criminals? Doesn't seem very logical to me. The whole piece even undermines their own arguments. They mention the 'case of the Love Zone'... which was cracked by investigators finding clues the old fashioned way. Not drag net surveillance. The article also places many issues that aren't tech related as tech problems. It says "Bing was said to regularly submit reports that lacked essential information, making investigations difficult" Let's compare that line to offline: If I own a pizza parlor where pedo's hang out sometimes, and I find a picture of CP in a restroom and hand it in to the authorities or call them up, would you blame the Pizza Parlor for the lack of fingerprints on the pictures? Would you think it's ok then to make wearing gloves illegal? I mean, if people use gloves, pedos can use gloves and hide their fingerprints. Why not target gloves? There is a real issue: Child Abuse. There are real solutions that are complex and extremely resource intensive. A report doesn't create a case. Focusing on tech and the lack of having MORE drag net surveillance seems absurd. This is coming from someone who grew up with abuse. When I go to forums to discuss abuse (it helps me deal with what happened) almost everyone tells of times that the abuse was reported but not well investigated. In fact, I've known people who work in CPS and they almost universally say the system is broken. A child in my city was recently beat to death by his step dad... an CPS had been called on them multiple times. We could be focusing on fixing that (you know, the things the people on the front line say are wrong). But no. Drag net surveillance is the thing we should focus on apparently (even though in the very article you mention it states we have more current reporting than we have resources to deal with it)
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  I know a number of teachers, and there are quite strict mandatory reporting policies for when child abuse is even suspected. The reality is that the organizations responsible for looking into these reports of abuse only have enough resources to investigate those where the child's life is in immediate danger. The venn diagrams of "internet chat surveillance" and 'solutions to the problems of child abuse" are mutually exclusive. Politicians are grossly morally corrupt to use child abuse as an argument against encryption when they're the ones controlling the purse strings for Child Services-type organizations. Feathering their own nests at the cost of actual, real progress on protecting children from abuse.