4 ms·

Let's be real, of course many of those people will be child abusers. But let's also be real about something else. Think of the Venn diagram of child abusers an

Let's be real, of course many of those people will be child abusers. But let's also be real about something else. Think of the Venn diagram of child abusers and people who share CSAM online. Those circles are not identical. Not everybody with CSAM is necessarily a child abuser. Worse, how many child abusers don't share CSAM online? Those can't ever be found by Apple-style invasions of privacy, so one has to wonder if we're being asked to give up significant privacy for a crime fighting strategy that may not even be all that effective. The cynic in me is also wondering what fraction of people working at places like NCMEC are pedophiles. It'd be a rather convenient job for them. And after all, there's a long history of ostensibly child-serving institutions harboring the worst kind of offenders.

zepto 5y ago
All CSAM is produced by child abuse. Everyone who shares 30 images online is a participant in child abuse, even if only by creating a demand for images. > a crime fighting strategy Is it a crime fighting strategy? I thought it was just about not making their devices and services into aids for these crimes. > The cynic in me is also wondering what fraction of people working at places like NCMEC are pedophiles. Good question. What has that to do with this?
- atq2119 5y ago
  That's a tedious debate that has been rehashed to death. Finding somebody who has CSAM without being a child abuser doesn't save even a single child. Finding everybody who has CSAM without being a child abuser would likely save some children (drying out commercial operations, perhaps?), but is also basically impossible. And how many children can really be helped in this way? Surely the majority of child abuse happens independently of the online sharing of CSAM. And is that really worth the suspension of important civil rights? That is really what this discussion is about. Nobody is arguing against fighting child abuse, the question is about how, and about what means can be justified.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Surely the majority of child abuse happens independently of the online sharing of CSAM. Does it? I see no reason to assume that. > And is that really worth the suspension of important civil rights? No civil rights are being suspended. It’s not about that at all.

zepto 5y ago

All CSAM is produced by child abuse. Everyone who shares 30 images online is a participant in child abuse, even if only by creating a demand for images. > a crime fighting strategy Is it a crime fighting strategy? I thought it was just about not making their devices and services into aids for these crimes. > The cynic in me is also wondering what fraction of people working at places like NCMEC are pedophiles. Good question. What has that to do with this?

atq2119 5y ago
That's a tedious debate that has been rehashed to death. Finding somebody who has CSAM without being a child abuser doesn't save even a single child. Finding everybody who has CSAM without being a child abuser would likely save some children (drying out commercial operations, perhaps?), but is also basically impossible. And how many children can really be helped in this way? Surely the majority of child abuse happens independently of the online sharing of CSAM. And is that really worth the suspension of important civil rights? That is really what this discussion is about. Nobody is arguing against fighting child abuse, the question is about how, and about what means can be justified.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Surely the majority of child abuse happens independently of the online sharing of CSAM. Does it? I see no reason to assume that. > And is that really worth the suspension of important civil rights? No civil rights are being suspended. It’s not about that at all.