8 ms·
Should encryption be curbed to combat child abuse?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- smabie 5y agoNo. That was easy!
- getcrunk 5y agoShould the free movement of people outside their houses be curbed to combat child abuse/drug trafficking/burglary
- thaumasiotes 5y agoWhile child abuse and drug trafficking were presumably not concerns, ancient Chinese cities really did implement a curfew for commoners. It was a sign of status to own a house which opened directly onto the street (making you immune to the curfew).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rektide 5y agoto what ends was this implemented? general public peace? or largely a demonstration of biopower, control? such exercises of dominion over the population sometimes seem like justifiable steps, necessities. but whether such justifications seem or more chiefly remain plausible...
- thaumasiotes 5y agoThe records of the time suggest that it's just viewed as the correct order of things. It was a long time ago and it came to be unenforceable; we can't really know why it was done.
- m463 5y agoYou forgot terrorism. hmmm, and viruses.
- cvwright 5y agoThis is worse. This is like curbing door locks to combat burglary. Like, the cops know there have been burglaries, so now everyone must leave their house open so it can be inspected for stolen goods. It’s that stupid.
- anoncake 5y agoDon't worry: Children are generally considered less important than 80 year olds.
- carabiner 5y agoNo, I will not think of the children.
- snarf21 5y agoIsn't that the rule? If a headline has a question, the answer is always NO!
- orev 5y agoBetteridge’s law of headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
- falcolas 5y agoWouldn’t it better to prevent procreation? No children, no child abuse. Cant even hide abuse that doesn’t exist by keeping off the internet with it. Makes about as much sense as banning encryption to prevent abuse. So long as deviant minds exist, child abuse will exist. Even if you could perfectly prosecute all transmissions of the resulting artifacts.
- antisol 5y agoOMG what an excellent suggestion! Banning encryption won't stop all child abuse but this totally sensible measure is guaranteed to do just that! You, sir (or madam), are a genius! The only question in my mind now is whether we should kill all the children out there today or just sterilise everybody. If we don't kill them, some of them might be abused between now and the time they reach adulthood. So it's pretty obvious to me that for the sake of the children we should kill all the children. It's really the only logical conclusion. Won't somebody please think of the children! (and kill them)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- quickthrowman 5y agoNo, but children should have mandatory body cams installed at birth and removed at adulthood. They’re overwhelmingly likely to be abused by family or a close family friend, and permanent body cams would curb child sex abuse.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y agoI hate this issue. The answer is "yes", but in practice the question isn't that simple. The use of a technology by criminals should not necessarily mean the technology needs to be curbed. Insofar as we know criminals are using it, I'd ask "how" - and can we innovate on the law enforcement side without unnecessarily interfering with the lives of civilians?
- SV_BubbleTime 5y agoThe answer is “no” and no. And any cases made for yes are in every time I’ve seen it, as short sighted as could be.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hprotagonist 5y agoBegging the question, much? https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-enforcement-accessing-locked-devices-quite-well-thank-you https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-enforcement-accessing-locked...
- jMyles 5y agoNo, to the contrary, end-to-end encryption is crucial for protecting children. https://blog.nucypher.com/todays-kids-need-end-to-end-encryption/ https://blog.nucypher.com/todays-kids-need-end-to-end-encryp...
- cvwright 5y agoThis is 100% the argument that pro-encryption people should be making everywhere. Think of the children. Encrypt their data!
- cvwright 5y ago> end-to-end encryption is crucial for protecting children. A brazenly shameless plug for something that I'm trying to build to do exactly that: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cvwright/circles-a-secure-social-app-for-friends-and-family?ref=ewm370 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cvwright/circles-a-secu...
- jMyles 5y agoHeck yeah man. This is cool. Thanks for taking this challenge seriously.
- underseacables 5y agoShould encryption be be curbed to combat human trafficking? Murder? Terrorism? Child abuse is a crime like any other, curbing encryption will not stop it, and would probably systemically make other non-emotional issues worse.
- falcolas 5y agoYou know what, sure. Let's do that. Let's destroy the entirety of online commerce. Let's destroy the ability to digitally prove identities of corporations and people. Let's eliminate the security and integrity of every computer system. Let's expose every company that uses a network to connect its computers together to hackers. Let's eliminate every viable form of DRM (actually, I'm kinda OK with that one). Let's destroy the entire concept of proof of work. Sure, let's "curb" encryption.
- gruez 5y ago>Let's destroy the entire concept of proof of work. Some HNers would unironically support that.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoSure, I would. Bitcoin proves that proof of work is unsustainable and uses too much energy.
- contravariant 5y agoPretty sure curbing encryption would break proof of stake as well though.
- falcolas 5y agoCrypto-anything, minus crypto, will break. I mean, even the wallets rely on encryption (public/private key encryption, if I understand it correctly).
- contravariant 5y agoDRM isn't encryption just obfuscation.
- falcolas 5y agoHDCP. An encrypted stream with a pre-shared key, designed to prevent the interception of video and audio streams over HDMI cables. Even DVDs data streams are encrypted, which is why the release of that magic number (AKA a pre-shared key) is such a big thing.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoNo.
- threatofrain 5y ago> "The reality is end-to-end encryption will drastically reduce the amount of CSAM material reported to authorities," Mr Bason tells the BBC. "To me, the trade-off is not worth it." The software firm created by Brian Bason: https://www.bark.us/ https://www.bark.us/
- matheusmoreira 5y ago> Bark's affordable, award-winning dashboard proactively monitors text messages, YouTube, emails, and 30+ different social networks for potential safety concerns, so busy parents can save time and gain peace of mind. Looks like end-to-end encryption is a direct threat to his business.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tacker2000 5y agoIt’s really baffling how clueless these lawmakers (still) are when it comes to technology… but they just might not care and are just trying to push some new surveillance agenda again…
- paperwasp42 5y agoThe majority of child abuse isn't filmed or transmitted. Therefore, if the goal is truly to reduce child abuse, the best law would be to remove front doors and make house walls out of glass. By allowing others to look into your home and listen to your conversations, they can verify that no abuse is occurring, and easily collect evidence when it does occur. Don't like that idea? Why? It's not like you have anything to hide, right? You're a stand-up, law-abiding citizen. So what does it matter if people can look inside your home and listen to your private conversations? ^ This is the argument I use whenever someone says they think encryption should be ended. I think because digital data isn't physical, and therefore doesn't feel intimate, people's immediate reaction is, "Only criminals who have something to hide would want encryption!" When you add a tangible, physical element to the conversation--a conversation taking place within a house with doors and walls--suddenly people understand why even "harmless" conversations deserve privacy and respect, and why non-criminals would be pro-encryption.
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago> By allowing others to look into your home and listen to your conversations, they can verify that no abuse is occurring, and easily collect evidence when it does occur. CPS can do that if they have a warrant.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bronzeage 5y agoThat's a clear strawman. There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation. There are also restrictions of police investigations by law, requiring warrant, and other stuff that are the real way you're supposed to be protected from the government. The real problem is that while some western government have rule of law and can be relatively expected to be just, other governments are not, and it's bad setting the precedent of government intervention because many non western governments can't be trusted with it.
- throw0101a 5y agoReminder: > 8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?" > like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... * https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/cyphernomicon/CP-FAQ https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/cryp...
- matheusmoreira 5y agoYes, it's extremely tiresome seeing people summon those same boogeymen over and over. It's gotten to the point I assume anyone who even mentions those things has an agenda to push.
- pengaru 5y agoNo.
- postalrat 5y agoShould procreation be curbed to combat child abuse?
- grouphugs 5y agono, the question doesn't even make sense, these governments are nazis
- aaron-santos 5y agoThe state won't blanket ban encryption because it's useful to the operation of companies. The way I see it going down is by asking these questions: Who will have access to encryption (the privilege of security)? and Who gets to decide who has access to encryption? The state can take away voting rights, gun rights, right to movement, right to serve on a jury, right to public benefits, and the right to parental benefits. Why shouldn't the state also assume it has the ability to decide who has access to the right of security through encryption? If actual momentum builds toward reducing encryption access, expect to see ex-felons being forbade security. Who will object?
- matheusmoreira 5y agoThey cannot restrict anything unless they end computing freedom first.
- aaron-santos 5y agoThey can certainly criminalize encryption for individuals. Criminalization is orthogonal to restriction.
- lowbloodsugar 5y agoIt is important that any discussion that leads with "think of the children" is immediately turned into "Yes, let's think of the children. Here is a four point plan to address poverty, systemic racism, education and opportunity..." "Oh, but this is free and those things cost billions of pounds!" Actually no, this is not free. This prevents protecting banking. It prevents protecting oil pipelines. The cost of breakable encryption is billions or trillions. My brother spent several years doing legal aid in the UK, and my mum is on children's panels. There's plenty the government can do to reduce child abuse that doesn't involve encryption, but it chooses not to. So here we have one group that is looking at a visual evidence of child abuse, and determining that we should not have encryption because then we wont have visual evidence of child abuse - as if child abuse started in 1993. Another that runs a business which makes the claim of having identified hundreds of child predators and informed the FBI - with no fact checking from the BBC or presumption of innocence or linking to other stories of AI bias... Meanwhile, there are no social workers. No teachers. No opportunity besides crime. And is killing a kid child abuse? What if the kid is black, and the police did it? Here's the test: sure, government, here's a list of things you can do to stop child abuse. Encryption is last on the list. You can get to that after you've addresses all the other, vastly larger, problems.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoChild abuse survivor here. I'd like to review some history. For the entire history of police, until 1990 or so, children who had experienced abuse knew to not go to the police. It wasn't worth getting gaslighted or worse. In no way were cops there for us. Not only did we know it, so did abusers. What changed? Sounding klaxons over child abuse began to draw press attention - then political power and fat budgets for LEO and NGOs. Once abused children became a sure path to the cash and power, police leadership and politicians suddenly cared like they never, ever had before. This anti-encryption farce is no different. Damaged kids are the means to their ends - for LEO to acquire even more new surveillance powers along with the stacks of cash needed to deploy them - and as virtue-flags for politicians to wave before uncritical voters. Those of us who were hurt before it was profitable to care - we aren't a fan of seeing kids' pain traded like a commodity.
- senectus1 5y agoI have young kids. No.
- nabilhat 5y agoWe already know that missing or incompetently configured encryption exists, we see IoT stories about this all the time, and we already see news stories when the occasional internet creep gets caught peering into the encryption-unencumbered private lives of friends, classmates, colleagues, or strangers. This is already a problem which we can readily point to as reason not to exponentially increase the number of peepholes already on the internet. Sure, it might solve the end-to-end encrypted sharing of that content - by flooding the supply so much that there's no point.
- motohagiography 5y agoThese morbid people do not have a moral leg to stand on when it comes to encryption. The article itself is a plant to gauge public opinion and has nothing to do with news, public interest, or facts, and these people should be ashamed at selling themselves for some tawdry publicity to be used as a political windvane.
- mbrodersen 5y agoShould parenting be curbed to combat child abuse? Should kindergartens be curbed to combat child abuse? Should it be illegal for woman with children to remarry to curve child abuse? Should cars be illegal to curbe accidents? I could go on ...