16 ms·

Some people, including in these comments, make the argument that preventing E2EE on Facebook is pointless because offenders can simply move to another service.

Some people, including in these comments, make the argument that preventing E2EE on Facebook is pointless because offenders can simply move to another service. That's not a very good argument for two reasons. First, Facebook is already used by pedophiles despite the lack of E2EE. 2500 arrests for child abuse last year according to the letter. An example is given of a pedophile identified through his messages with an 11 year old girl. With E2EE enabled he would not have been identified at that time. Secondly, the letter highlights that a major problem is the combination of open profiles of children with E2EE messaging. This does not apply to any service, mainly Facebook and similar platforms. Don't get me wrong, I am overall in favour of E2EE, and I share the usual cynicism about the government's intentions. You can make the argument that although absence of E2EE does help identify pedophiles more easily, in the balance it is more important to enable E2EE to protect privacy. But you should not make the argument that absence of E2EE on FB would not help identify pedophiles more easily, because this letter provides evidence that it actually does.

thrwaway69 7y ago
isn't Facebook for 13+ teens? Did they change the terms recently? And where are the parents? Do you just hand your kid phone without any parental controls? Why should we not focus educating parents about raising kids than fucking over with everyone?
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Monday parents are not capable od seeing up parental controls, and I don't think we will see that change in the next 10 years even if we direct quite a lot of effort to the matter
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    so by putting everyone at risk with really minimal security looking at conviction rate and who really are sexually abusing the kids (hint, it's not a rando on the internet) is a better alternative to a long term advantage of having better highly educated parents that will stop cycle of mismanagement across generation like how abuse spreads from one generation to another. Principles and behavior do too. Why not ask politicians to put forward regulations that makes it mandatory for companies to make parental control accessible and usable? But of course that won't do. Parents should have no responsibility beyond giving the kid an iPad or a smart surveillance device.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  this exists, and already comes with some parental controls. And you don't need a Facebook account to use FB messenger. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.talk https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.t...
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    Not available where I live but yeah, snapchat has a similar app. I think there needs to be an open source federated social media with stricter controls and from a more trustworthy actor than Facebook that you can self host or schools can. So you can connect with your friends and classmates from school via federated link to your home one. Every link will require approval. Though that seems like a pipe dream.
abnry 7y ago
Thank you for saying this. There are three classes of people: (a) hardened criminals/terrorists who work professionally, (b) amateur criminals who don't know what they are doing and (c) law abiding citizens. Of all the criminal activity out there, I would guess the largest proportion comes from (b). You could argue that if you could eliminate one category of crime, it would be better to eliminate this one than the crimes committed by group (a). I still think FB should implement E2EE because of the costs to the third group (c).
user840148 7y ago
> You can make the argument that although absence of E2EE does help identify pedophiles more easily, in the balance it is more important to enable E2EE to protect privacy. You're correct in what we should NOT argue. Now, the problem with "in the balance" between security and privacy is that when in fear society will quickly go for patriot act. It's curious how we, as a society, can't find a simple, true and incontestable argument in favor of privacy. The only one I know is that it is a fundamental right. But still this argument is a little too abstract for most people.
wildfire 7y ago
> With E2EE enabled he would > not have been identified at > that time. What is the source for this? Do you have a link for more context?

thrwaway69 7y ago

isn't Facebook for 13+ teens? Did they change the terms recently? And where are the parents? Do you just hand your kid phone without any parental controls? Why should we not focus educating parents about raising kids than fucking over with everyone?

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
Monday parents are not capable od seeing up parental controls, and I don't think we will see that change in the next 10 years even if we direct quite a lot of effort to the matter
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  so by putting everyone at risk with really minimal security looking at conviction rate and who really are sexually abusing the kids (hint, it's not a rando on the internet) is a better alternative to a long term advantage of having better highly educated parents that will stop cycle of mismanagement across generation like how abuse spreads from one generation to another. Principles and behavior do too. Why not ask politicians to put forward regulations that makes it mandatory for companies to make parental control accessible and usable? But of course that won't do. Parents should have no responsibility beyond giving the kid an iPad or a smart surveillance device.
m-p-3 7y ago
this exists, and already comes with some parental controls. And you don't need a Facebook account to use FB messenger. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.talk https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.t...
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  Not available where I live but yeah, snapchat has a similar app. I think there needs to be an open source federated social media with stricter controls and from a more trustworthy actor than Facebook that you can self host or schools can. So you can connect with your friends and classmates from school via federated link to your home one. Every link will require approval. Though that seems like a pipe dream.

abnry 7y ago

Thank you for saying this. There are three classes of people: (a) hardened criminals/terrorists who work professionally, (b) amateur criminals who don't know what they are doing and (c) law abiding citizens. Of all the criminal activity out there, I would guess the largest proportion comes from (b). You could argue that if you could eliminate one category of crime, it would be better to eliminate this one than the crimes committed by group (a). I still think FB should implement E2EE because of the costs to the third group (c).

user840148 7y ago

> You can make the argument that although absence of E2EE does help identify pedophiles more easily, in the balance it is more important to enable E2EE to protect privacy. You're correct in what we should NOT argue. Now, the problem with "in the balance" between security and privacy is that when in fear society will quickly go for patriot act. It's curious how we, as a society, can't find a simple, true and incontestable argument in favor of privacy. The only one I know is that it is a fundamental right. But still this argument is a little too abstract for most people.

wildfire 7y ago

> With E2EE enabled he would > not have been identified at > that time. What is the source for this? Do you have a link for more context?