5 ms·

Preventing children from using E2EE is not a "net positive" just as preventing adults from using E2EE is also not a "net positive". Privacy is a human right, no

Preventing children from using E2EE is not a "net positive" just as preventing adults from using E2EE is also not a "net positive". Privacy is a human right, not a right that should be made exclusive to adults. Just because children are restricted from other activities does not make it justified to restrict their rights further. End-to-end encryption helps prevent messages from being intercepted by intermediaries, such as companies and governments. For example, an advocate (for human rights, environment, or any other cause) who is under 18 may wish to coordinate a protest or some other activity while minimizing exposure to surveillance from potential adversaries. Or in a more ordinary example, children may want to communicate with others without being profiled by advertisers or government agencies through the content of their messages. Secure communications are as valuable to children as they are to adults.

pyuser583 5y ago
I review my daughters devices regularly. She has encounters extremely predatory content - basically groomers reaching out to see who will bite. As a parent, I have a right to review my childs communications. If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted. That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message. That’s makes parental oversight extremely difficult.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  The only connection between disappearing messages and end to end encryption is they're both privacy features.
- okamiueru 5y ago
  Are you reviewing the messages on their devices, or package sniffing at the gateway? I don't see how E2EE has any effect on whether a device/application retains communications or not. A separate argument is that kids experiment and do dumb stuff together with other kids. Forcing them to not be able to do so in private without bad actors collecting images seems like a pretty significant sacrifice in human rights. I get the intention, I just think it is very misguided.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    Lol … a little of both. As I said my daughter came into heavy contact with pedo/grooming material. Nasty stuff. I’m reviewing her devices manually and monitoring her connections via router logs. The two work in tandem. When I see an issue with one I check the other. Once she shows better judgement, I’ll back off and give her more privacy. She’s very young now, and does need the supervision.
- commoner 5y ago
  Prohibiting minors from using end-to-end encryption would not prevent them from using self-destructing messages, since they are completely different features. There are messaging solutions with end-to-end encryption that do not have self-destructing messages (e.g. E2EE email, Apple iMessages) and vice versa (e.g. Snapchat). As a parent, you have the option to use parental controls to block apps with the self-destructing messages feature. However, other parents may have different parenting situations and styles that do not need this feature to be restricted from their children. Pushing for a feature to be unavailable for all children would infringe on other children's rights and their parents' rights.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  Do wire-tapping laws not apply to children? That’s what you just admitted to.
- bildung 5y ago
  > If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted. > That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Encryption neither enables nor prevents auto deletion of content.
ethanbond 5y ago
So your answers are children organizing protests and children not being targeted by advertisers. Personally unconvinced by these since neither is actually guaranteed by E2EE nor is E2EE required for either. A functioning society can (and should) protect both of those things, and a non-functioning one doesn’t need to ban E2EE to attack them. I appreciate the response in any case.
- commoner 5y ago
  I'll try to express my point from a different angle. If E2EE were unavailable for adults, it would probably be easier for law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse cases in which adults are the victims. But, it would also prevent adults from enjoying the security and privacy benefits of E2EE and the protection E2EE affords against having their messages intercepted (which is something advertisers, hostile governments, and other adverse intermediaries regularly do). Many adults would not trade away the ability to use E2EE in exchange for a more empowered law enforcement. Child sex abuse may be a more severe crime than adult sex abuse, but aside from how certain crimes are sentenced, E2EE benefits children just as much as it benefits adults. Before arguing that E2EE should be unavailable for children, I would consider whether the argument holds up if E2EE were revoked for adults as well.

pyuser583 5y ago

I review my daughters devices regularly. She has encounters extremely predatory content - basically groomers reaching out to see who will bite. As a parent, I have a right to review my childs communications. If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted. That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message. That’s makes parental oversight extremely difficult.

pseudalopex 5y ago
The only connection between disappearing messages and end to end encryption is they're both privacy features.
okamiueru 5y ago
Are you reviewing the messages on their devices, or package sniffing at the gateway? I don't see how E2EE has any effect on whether a device/application retains communications or not. A separate argument is that kids experiment and do dumb stuff together with other kids. Forcing them to not be able to do so in private without bad actors collecting images seems like a pretty significant sacrifice in human rights. I get the intention, I just think it is very misguided.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Lol … a little of both. As I said my daughter came into heavy contact with pedo/grooming material. Nasty stuff. I’m reviewing her devices manually and monitoring her connections via router logs. The two work in tandem. When I see an issue with one I check the other. Once she shows better judgement, I’ll back off and give her more privacy. She’s very young now, and does need the supervision.
commoner 5y ago
Prohibiting minors from using end-to-end encryption would not prevent them from using self-destructing messages, since they are completely different features. There are messaging solutions with end-to-end encryption that do not have self-destructing messages (e.g. E2EE email, Apple iMessages) and vice versa (e.g. Snapchat). As a parent, you have the option to use parental controls to block apps with the self-destructing messages feature. However, other parents may have different parenting situations and styles that do not need this feature to be restricted from their children. Pushing for a feature to be unavailable for all children would infringe on other children's rights and their parents' rights.
withinboredom 5y ago
Do wire-tapping laws not apply to children? That’s what you just admitted to.
bildung 5y ago
> If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted. > That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Encryption neither enables nor prevents auto deletion of content.

ethanbond 5y ago

So your answers are children organizing protests and children not being targeted by advertisers. Personally unconvinced by these since neither is actually guaranteed by E2EE nor is E2EE required for either. A functioning society can (and should) protect both of those things, and a non-functioning one doesn’t need to ban E2EE to attack them. I appreciate the response in any case.

commoner 5y ago
I'll try to express my point from a different angle. If E2EE were unavailable for adults, it would probably be easier for law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse cases in which adults are the victims. But, it would also prevent adults from enjoying the security and privacy benefits of E2EE and the protection E2EE affords against having their messages intercepted (which is something advertisers, hostile governments, and other adverse intermediaries regularly do). Many adults would not trade away the ability to use E2EE in exchange for a more empowered law enforcement. Child sex abuse may be a more severe crime than adult sex abuse, but aside from how certain crimes are sentenced, E2EE benefits children just as much as it benefits adults. Before arguing that E2EE should be unavailable for children, I would consider whether the argument holds up if E2EE were revoked for adults as well.