4 ms·

> But you're also completely wrong in assuming that there is some kind of escape hatch or technological miracle that anyone can pull off to make those fears go

by zepto 5y ago

> But you're also completely wrong in assuming that there is some kind of escape hatch or technological miracle that anyone can pull off to make those fears go away, I can’t be wrong about that since I’m not claiming that anywhere or assuming it. > because in your own words: "parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats." Given that I wrote this, why would you claim that I think otherwise? > There is no technological solution that will ease their fear, because it's not about the stats. Agreed, except that I go further and claim that the stats are not sufficient, so making about the stats can’t solve the problem. > People being scared of things is not evidence, It’s evidence of fear. Fear is real, but it’s not a measure of severity or probability. > that's not something we can have a productive conversation about. I don’t see why we can’t take into account people’s fears. > If we're going to create a "solution", then we need to know what the problem is, what the weak points are, and what metrics we're using to figure out whether or not we're making progress. Yes. One of those metrics could be ‘in what ways does this compromise privacy’, and another could be ‘in what ways does this impede child abuse use cases’. I suspect Apple is trying to solve for those metrics. Perhaps someone else can do better. > If that's not on the table, then also in your words, we need to "accept that this is the environment" This part is unclear. > stop trying to pretend that coming up with technical solutions will do anything to reduce calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors. It’s unclear why you would say anyone is pretending this, least of all me. I have wholeheartedly agreed with you that these calls are ‘evergreen’. I want solutions to problems like the child abuse use cases, such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to.

danShumway 5y ago
> except that I go further and claim that the stats are not sufficient, so making about the stats can’t solve the problem. Statistics are a reflection of reality. When you say that the stats don't matter, you are saying that the reality doesn't matter. Just that people are scared. You need to go another step further than you are currently going, and realize that any technological "solution" will only be affecting the reality, and by extension will only be affecting the stats. And we both agree that the stats can't solve the problem. It's not that making this about the stats will solve the problem. It won't. But neither will any technological change. You can not solve an irrational fear by making reality safer. ---- Let's say we abandon this fight and roll over and accept Apple moving forward with scanning. Do you honestly believe that even one parent is going to look at that and say, "okay, that's enough, I'm not scared of child predators anymore."? Can you truthfully tell me that you think the political landscape and the hostility towards encryption would change at all? And if not, how can you float compromise as a political solution? What does a "solution" to an irrational fear even look like? How will we tell that the solution is working? You say the stats don't matter; then we might as well give concerned parents fake "magic" bracelets and tell them that they make kids impossible to kidnap. Placebo bracelets won't reduce actual child abuse of course, but as you keep reiterating, actual child abuse numbers are not why these people are afraid. Heck, placebo bracelets might help reduce parent's fear more than Apple's system, since placebo bracelets would be a constantly visible reminder to the parents that they don't need to be afraid, and all of Apple's scanning happens invisibly behind the scenes where it's easy to forget. ---- > I want solutions to problems like the child abuse use cases, such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to. Out of curiosity, how will you prove to these people that your solutions are sufficient and that they work as substitutes for weakening encryption? How will you prove to these people that your solutions are enough? Will you use stats? Appeal to logic? You almost completely understand the entire situation right now, you just haven't connected the dots that all of your technological "solutions" are subject to the same problems as the current debate.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Statistics are a reflection of reality. No, they are the output of a process. Whether a process reflects ‘reality’ is dependent on the process and how people understand it. This is essential to science. Even when statistics are the result of the best scientific processes available, they are typically narrow and reflect only a small portion of reality. This is why they are insufficient. > When you say that the stats don't matter, I never said they don’t matter. I just said they were insufficient to convince people who are afraid. > you are saying that the reality doesn't matter. Since I’m not saying they don’t matter, this is irrelevant. > It's not that making this about the stats will solve the problem. It won't. But neither will any technological change. You can not solve an irrational fear by making reality safer. Can you find a place where this contradicts something I’ve said? I haven’t argued to the contrary anywhere. I don’t expect to get the fears to go away. As to whether they are rational are not, some are, and some aren’t. We don’t know which are which because you don’t have the stats, so we have to accept that there is a mix. > Will you use stats? Appeal to logic? Probably a mix of both, maybe some demos, who knows. I won’t expect them to be sufficient to silence the people who are arguing in favor of weakening encryption, not make parents feel secure about their children being protected against predation forever. > You almost completely understand the entire situation right now, you just haven't connected the dots that all of your technological "solutions" are subject to the same problems as the current debate. Again you misrepresent me. Can you find a place where I argue that technological solutions are not subject to the same problems as the current debate? I don’t think you can find such a place. I have fully agreed that you can’t escape the vicissitudes of the current debate. Nonetheless, you can still produce better technological solutions. This isn’t about prevailing over unquantifiable fears and dark forces. It’s about making better technologies in their presence.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > This is essential to science. Okay, fine. Are you claiming that people who are calling to ban encryption are doing so on a scientific basis? Come on, be serious here. People call to ban encryption because it scares them, not because they have a model of the world based on real data or real science that they're using to reinforce that belief. If they did, we could argue with them. But we can't, because they don't. > Can you find a place where this contradicts something I’ve said? Yes, see below: > such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to I'm open to some kind of clarification that makes this comment make sense. How are your "solutions" going to make people less afraid? On what basis are you going to argue with these people that your solution is better than banning encryption? Pretend that I'm a concerned parent right now. I want to ban encryption. What can you tell me now to convince me that any other solution will be better?

by zepto 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

> except that I go further and claim that the stats are not sufficient, so making about the stats can’t solve the problem. Statistics are a reflection of reality. When you say that the stats don't matter, you are saying that the reality doesn't matter. Just that people are scared. You need to go another step further than you are currently going, and realize that any technological "solution" will only be affecting the reality, and by extension will only be affecting the stats. And we both agree that the stats can't solve the problem. It's not that making this about the stats will solve the problem. It won't. But neither will any technological change. You can not solve an irrational fear by making reality safer. ---- Let's say we abandon this fight and roll over and accept Apple moving forward with scanning. Do you honestly believe that even one parent is going to look at that and say, "okay, that's enough, I'm not scared of child predators anymore."? Can you truthfully tell me that you think the political landscape and the hostility towards encryption would change at all? And if not, how can you float compromise as a political solution? What does a "solution" to an irrational fear even look like? How will we tell that the solution is working? You say the stats don't matter; then we might as well give concerned parents fake "magic" bracelets and tell them that they make kids impossible to kidnap. Placebo bracelets won't reduce actual child abuse of course, but as you keep reiterating, actual child abuse numbers are not why these people are afraid. Heck, placebo bracelets might help reduce parent's fear more than Apple's system, since placebo bracelets would be a constantly visible reminder to the parents that they don't need to be afraid, and all of Apple's scanning happens invisibly behind the scenes where it's easy to forget. ---- > I want solutions to problems like the child abuse use cases, such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to. Out of curiosity, how will you prove to these people that your solutions are sufficient and that they work as substitutes for weakening encryption? How will you prove to these people that your solutions are enough? Will you use stats? Appeal to logic? You almost completely understand the entire situation right now, you just haven't connected the dots that all of your technological "solutions" are subject to the same problems as the current debate.

zepto 5y ago
> Statistics are a reflection of reality. No, they are the output of a process. Whether a process reflects ‘reality’ is dependent on the process and how people understand it. This is essential to science. Even when statistics are the result of the best scientific processes available, they are typically narrow and reflect only a small portion of reality. This is why they are insufficient. > When you say that the stats don't matter, I never said they don’t matter. I just said they were insufficient to convince people who are afraid. > you are saying that the reality doesn't matter. Since I’m not saying they don’t matter, this is irrelevant. > It's not that making this about the stats will solve the problem. It won't. But neither will any technological change. You can not solve an irrational fear by making reality safer. Can you find a place where this contradicts something I’ve said? I haven’t argued to the contrary anywhere. I don’t expect to get the fears to go away. As to whether they are rational are not, some are, and some aren’t. We don’t know which are which because you don’t have the stats, so we have to accept that there is a mix. > Will you use stats? Appeal to logic? Probably a mix of both, maybe some demos, who knows. I won’t expect them to be sufficient to silence the people who are arguing in favor of weakening encryption, not make parents feel secure about their children being protected against predation forever. > You almost completely understand the entire situation right now, you just haven't connected the dots that all of your technological "solutions" are subject to the same problems as the current debate. Again you misrepresent me. Can you find a place where I argue that technological solutions are not subject to the same problems as the current debate? I don’t think you can find such a place. I have fully agreed that you can’t escape the vicissitudes of the current debate. Nonetheless, you can still produce better technological solutions. This isn’t about prevailing over unquantifiable fears and dark forces. It’s about making better technologies in their presence.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > This is essential to science. Okay, fine. Are you claiming that people who are calling to ban encryption are doing so on a scientific basis? Come on, be serious here. People call to ban encryption because it scares them, not because they have a model of the world based on real data or real science that they're using to reinforce that belief. If they did, we could argue with them. But we can't, because they don't. > Can you find a place where this contradicts something I’ve said? Yes, see below: > such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to I'm open to some kind of clarification that makes this comment make sense. How are your "solutions" going to make people less afraid? On what basis are you going to argue with these people that your solution is better than banning encryption? Pretend that I'm a concerned parent right now. I want to ban encryption. What can you tell me now to convince me that any other solution will be better?