3 ms·

>Child pornography and the related abuse is a massive problem >proposals for better solution How do you define "massive"? What makes you think that current ap

>Child pornography and the related abuse is a massive problem >proposals for better solution How do you define "massive"? What makes you think that current approach is not working well enough? Of course, it's really bad as soon as the very first case. But we need to go beyond the sensationalist articles which talk about millions of pictures outthere. Even though this is, yes, a problem. In the US, it looks like the number of child pornography cases is going down each year, from 1,593 in 2016 to 1,023 cases in 2020: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Child_Pornography_FY20.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu... So yes, there is a problem, but I would love some to see some justification that the problem is actually as massive as people imply, or getting worse. Or if they have a political goal in mind. And it feels to me like we talk about it a lot more, there is less taboo or social protections for perpetrators about it, which must help to fight this more efficiently than in the past.

zepto 5y ago
> child pornography cases is going down each year, from 1,593 in 2016 to 1,023 cases in 2020 Sam Harris (and the FBI) would likely say this is because detection is getting harder thanks to encryption. The only authority on this is actually the FBI, but I presume you wouldn’t trust them. That distrust is reasonable, but irrelevant. What matters is that many people will trust them and see the fear as legitimate. Arguing over numbers with me is irrelevant. I’m saying both positions are reasonable fears. You cannot win by denying that. One winning move would be to take the problem seriously and work out a better technical solution. There may be others.
- bisRepetita 5y ago
  >One winning move would be to take the problem seriously What makes you think that the problem is not taken seriously? I am no specialist, but it looks like cases are investigated and people are going to jail. You say that it is not the case, so I am curious what leads you to this statement. Yes, policies can be based on fears and opinion, but some numbers and rationality usually help make better decisions. I'd love to hear something more precise than fears and personal opinion, including the FBI of course.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Yes, policies can be based on fears and opinion, but some numbers and rationality usually help make better decisions. Sure, but you aren’t the decision maker. This is a political decision, and so will be based on the balance of fears and forces at play, not a rational analysis. It doesn’t matter how right or rational you are. It only matters how many people think you understand what they care about. If the Hacker position is ‘people shouldn’t care about child pornography because the solutions are all to invasive’ so be it. I just don’t think that’s an effective position.
    - bisRepetita 5y ago
      >you aren’t the decision maker. That is only partially true. If we both write, other people may read, then you and me possibly influence people. Wa are social beings, we are influenced by people around us. So we're both a tiny part of the decision process. And you talk about political decision: politicians keep listening to people through polls, phone calls received, and other ways. Even dictators can be, when numbers are high enough. So it does matter how rational we are. Over time and on average, people are more often convinced by rational discourse than irrationality. Probably because rationality has a higher likelihood of being right. But yes, we'll go through periods where irrationality wins... Still, it's very hard to be on the opposite side of logic and facts for a long time. >If the Hacker position is "people shouldn’t care about child pornography" I have not read that here. If you believe that child pornography is a massive issue, I respect that. I just would have hoped you could better describe the actual size of the problem and its evolution. You could have influenced me more effectively.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > If you believe that child pornography is a massive issue, I respect that. I just would have hoped you could better describe the actual size of the problem and its evolution. I don’t mind whether you are convinced. I’m not trying to convince you about the size of the problem. My position isn’t about how large the threat is. I don’t have any information that you don’t have access to. My position is that if we care about privacy we have to accept that people other than ourselves think the problem is big enough to warrant these measures. You have already lost this battle because enough people are convinced about the problem that tech companies are already doing what you don’t want them to do. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators
dragonwriter 5y ago
> In the US, it looks like the number of child pornography cases is going down each year Prosecuting fewer cases doesn't mean less abuse is occurring. It doesn't even mean that the number of instances of abuse for which cases are prosecuted are going down, just that the number of offenders prosecuted is going down.
- bisRepetita 5y ago
  Agree. It may well be a bad proxy. But it does not mean the problem is getting worse either, one would need to back it up with some arguments/estimates. The number of pictures on the internet does not seems a good one to me (cats population has not grown that big). I am thinking that people don't seem to know if the problem is really getting bigger. They just say it. If we don't know that, we cannot use growing child pornography as an argument to reducing civil liberties.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > They just say it. If we don't know that, we cannot use growing child pornography as an argument to reducing civil liberties. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators The FBI says it. People can and do use that argument whether we like it or not.
    - bisRepetita 5y ago
      Yes, they said it in 2011. With just one data point and no trend. Nothing shows here it exploded since. So the FBI and the whole society may have found somewhat effective ways without scanning phones.
      - zepto 5y ago
        I don’t expect to convince you the FBI is right. I am pointing out that other people will be convinced.

zepto 5y ago

> child pornography cases is going down each year, from 1,593 in 2016 to 1,023 cases in 2020 Sam Harris (and the FBI) would likely say this is because detection is getting harder thanks to encryption. The only authority on this is actually the FBI, but I presume you wouldn’t trust them. That distrust is reasonable, but irrelevant. What matters is that many people will trust them and see the fear as legitimate. Arguing over numbers with me is irrelevant. I’m saying both positions are reasonable fears. You cannot win by denying that. One winning move would be to take the problem seriously and work out a better technical solution. There may be others.

bisRepetita 5y ago
>One winning move would be to take the problem seriously What makes you think that the problem is not taken seriously? I am no specialist, but it looks like cases are investigated and people are going to jail. You say that it is not the case, so I am curious what leads you to this statement. Yes, policies can be based on fears and opinion, but some numbers and rationality usually help make better decisions. I'd love to hear something more precise than fears and personal opinion, including the FBI of course.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Yes, policies can be based on fears and opinion, but some numbers and rationality usually help make better decisions. Sure, but you aren’t the decision maker. This is a political decision, and so will be based on the balance of fears and forces at play, not a rational analysis. It doesn’t matter how right or rational you are. It only matters how many people think you understand what they care about. If the Hacker position is ‘people shouldn’t care about child pornography because the solutions are all to invasive’ so be it. I just don’t think that’s an effective position.
  - bisRepetita 5y ago
    >you aren’t the decision maker. That is only partially true. If we both write, other people may read, then you and me possibly influence people. Wa are social beings, we are influenced by people around us. So we're both a tiny part of the decision process. And you talk about political decision: politicians keep listening to people through polls, phone calls received, and other ways. Even dictators can be, when numbers are high enough. So it does matter how rational we are. Over time and on average, people are more often convinced by rational discourse than irrationality. Probably because rationality has a higher likelihood of being right. But yes, we'll go through periods where irrationality wins... Still, it's very hard to be on the opposite side of logic and facts for a long time. >If the Hacker position is "people shouldn’t care about child pornography" I have not read that here. If you believe that child pornography is a massive issue, I respect that. I just would have hoped you could better describe the actual size of the problem and its evolution. You could have influenced me more effectively.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > If you believe that child pornography is a massive issue, I respect that. I just would have hoped you could better describe the actual size of the problem and its evolution. I don’t mind whether you are convinced. I’m not trying to convince you about the size of the problem. My position isn’t about how large the threat is. I don’t have any information that you don’t have access to. My position is that if we care about privacy we have to accept that people other than ourselves think the problem is big enough to warrant these measures. You have already lost this battle because enough people are convinced about the problem that tech companies are already doing what you don’t want them to do. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators

dragonwriter 5y ago

> In the US, it looks like the number of child pornography cases is going down each year Prosecuting fewer cases doesn't mean less abuse is occurring. It doesn't even mean that the number of instances of abuse for which cases are prosecuted are going down, just that the number of offenders prosecuted is going down.

bisRepetita 5y ago
Agree. It may well be a bad proxy. But it does not mean the problem is getting worse either, one would need to back it up with some arguments/estimates. The number of pictures on the internet does not seems a good one to me (cats population has not grown that big). I am thinking that people don't seem to know if the problem is really getting bigger. They just say it. If we don't know that, we cannot use growing child pornography as an argument to reducing civil liberties.
- zepto 5y ago
  > They just say it. If we don't know that, we cannot use growing child pornography as an argument to reducing civil liberties. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/child-predators The FBI says it. People can and do use that argument whether we like it or not.
  - bisRepetita 5y ago
    Yes, they said it in 2011. With just one data point and no trend. Nothing shows here it exploded since. So the FBI and the whole society may have found somewhat effective ways without scanning phones.
    - zepto 5y ago
      I don’t expect to convince you the FBI is right. I am pointing out that other people will be convinced.