3 ms·

There is no end to the loss of privacy in the name of safety if your bogeyman is increasingly sophisticated actors. The more sophisticated child molesters out

by babesh 5y ago

There is no end to the loss of privacy in the name of safety if your bogeyman is increasingly sophisticated actors. The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. Isn’t that what the FBI is complaining about, that they have grown increasingly sophisticated? The more sophisticated privacy adherents will also avoid Apple and resort to end to encryption and offline tools. What is the actual outcome? You won’t get more arrests of child molesters. Instead, you get a security apparatus that can be weaponized against the masses. Furthermore, you will have the FBI complaining that child molesters are increasingly out of their reach and demanding greater powers. They will then try to mandate child porn detectors built into every phone. This creep has been occurring for years. Go read the Snowden disclosures. First your cell phone companies worked with the government for mass harvesting of data. No need for any suspicion because they promise not to look unless there is one. That wasn’t enough because the data was encrypted. Second they had the companies holding the data snoop in on data that was shared. That wasn’t enough. Third they had the companies holding the data snoop in on data EVEN when it wasn’t shared, just when it was uploaded to them. Not enough for them! Now they will have it done on device prior to uploading. Does this mean that if it fails to upload, it gets scanned anyway. Why yes! Next they will have it done on device even if it never is held by the company and never shared and never even intended to be uploaded. The obvious goal is that the government has access to ALL data in the name of safety. No need for warrants. Don’t worry about it. They won’t look unless there was any suspicion. Opps never mind that, we will just have tools look. There is no end to the loss of privacy in the name of safety if your bogeyman is increasingly sophisticated actors. Why isn’t this obvious to everyone? Anyone old enough to remember the Clipper chips?

zepto 5y ago
> The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning. They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them. As far as the FBI goes, this is presumably not their preference, but it’s still good for them if it makes predation a little harder.
- babesh 5y ago
  My point is that the FBI will just use that as a pretext for greater intrusion into privacy. Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos? Why limit it to child predators? Why not use this too for terrorists and anyone the FBI or any other government deems as subversive? In fact, if you just look at what the FBI has been saying over the years, that is exactly what they intend to do. People who say that this is a slippery slope argument don’t even notice that they have been sliding down that slippery slope for decades.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Where is anyone arguing against you? The point is that the demands for solutions may be neverending, but that doesn’t mean the problems are non-existent. If we want to limit the damage caused by the dynamic, we need to offer better solutions, not just complain about the FBI.
    - babesh 5y ago
      You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on this slope for decades which deems that the argument is valid and not fallacious. From Wikipedia’s entry for slippery slope: “The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground” This isn’t a middle ground. Every year the supposed middle ground shifts toward less and less privacy. Notice the slippery slope? The very presence of this means that the supposed middle ground just slipped further? Isn’t that obvious?
      - zepto 5y ago
        You’re ignoring the sentence after I mention the slippery slope, where I say: > These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it. I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.

by babesh 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

> The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning. They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them. As far as the FBI goes, this is presumably not their preference, but it’s still good for them if it makes predation a little harder.

babesh 5y ago
My point is that the FBI will just use that as a pretext for greater intrusion into privacy. Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos? Why limit it to child predators? Why not use this too for terrorists and anyone the FBI or any other government deems as subversive? In fact, if you just look at what the FBI has been saying over the years, that is exactly what they intend to do. People who say that this is a slippery slope argument don’t even notice that they have been sliding down that slippery slope for decades.
- zepto 5y ago
  Where is anyone arguing against you? The point is that the demands for solutions may be neverending, but that doesn’t mean the problems are non-existent. If we want to limit the damage caused by the dynamic, we need to offer better solutions, not just complain about the FBI.
  - babesh 5y ago
    You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on this slope for decades which deems that the argument is valid and not fallacious. From Wikipedia’s entry for slippery slope: “The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground” This isn’t a middle ground. Every year the supposed middle ground shifts toward less and less privacy. Notice the slippery slope? The very presence of this means that the supposed middle ground just slipped further? Isn’t that obvious?
    - zepto 5y ago
      You’re ignoring the sentence after I mention the slippery slope, where I say: > These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it. I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.