4 ms·

Am I really understanding this article correctly? It's claiming that it's bad that FB is delaying encryption because encryption is good, but also bad that it's

Am I really understanding this article correctly? It's claiming that it's bad that FB is delaying encryption because encryption is good, but also bad that it's adding encryption because encryption will help child predators, but that these two points are not contradictory because child predation is only an issue on social networks and not on other messaging services? This article sounds like it was written by a markov chain trained on members of Congress bloviating about encryption and "protecting the children".

blackoil 5y ago
It may not be as non-sensical as it sounds. Unlike Whatsapp, FB messenger is tied to a public profile, where people extensively share their life. This allows a predator to get contextual info like age, likes/dislikes, family problems and more which helps them in finding a victim and set a trap for the child.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  That makes sense, but I didn't understand the point very well from the article because it seems to flip back and forth between unrelated criticisms of Facebook. I don't know enough about the structure of predation to have an opinion on the merits of the point, but it sure seems like a reasonable excuse for delaying E2EE.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  In the US, law enforcement surveilling all messages in order to analyze to look for suspected child abusers would be illegal. We're talking about hoping that private companies will do it on their own (or be required to do it somehow?) in order to turn over to the police what their systems flag as looking like predators? And that it's important E2EE doesn't interfere with that?
  - swsieber 5y ago
    I don't think that's it. If you do suspect that someone is a child predator, encrypting what is probably the most likely stashes of incriminating evidence would make things harder to build a strong case. I could see a lack of encryption being useful even when everyone follows rules that many would see as too strict (I don't fall in that camp, I think). I don't think trade off is worth it though.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > In the US, law enforcement surveilling all messages in order to analyze to look for suspected child abusers would be illegal What if they do it to look for suspected terrorists (which is legal) and accidentally also check for child abusers? > We're talking about hoping that private companies will do it on their own (or be required to do it somehow?) in order to turn over to the police what their systems flag as looking like predators IIRC Facebook already do this, and have been criticized by charities in the domain that it isn't enough.
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      I don't believe it's legal to do for terrorism, but they may do it anyway semi-secretly, and it is currently legally contested (and they keep it semi-secret to make it harder to contest legally). So, what if they do? By reports they do indeed already do this, and it was earnestly explained in the tweet[1] linked elsewhere in this thread by a FB developer that the delay in E2EE is to make sure they can continue to do it. I don't like it, but as you note, others have other opinions. I think we should be clear that it's what's going on, what is we're talking about when we talk about delaying encryption to protect children, exactly what it is that is being proposed. Others in this thread still think "oh no that's not what we're talking about they'd never do that." Let's be clear about what we're talking about, whether we support it or not. [1]: https://twitter.com/elegant_wallaby/status/1462845336288825344 https://twitter.com/elegant_wallaby/status/14628453362888253...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- candiodari 5y ago
  Whereas government files on children, often used by child predators who work for/in/with child services or their private contractors contain both public AND non-public info (e.g. medical data on the child) helping out even more. Child services child predators often stand out due to the enormous number of children they victimize. Current record is over one thousand. You might wonder how one person can even do that, as you physically don't have enough time to do that as one person, so ... prepare to be disgusted: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-exp... Yet, somehow, despite child predators using these institutions regularly (in fact even the loverboys often complained about often recruit girls from child services institutions), there is no need to do anything about that. In fact, quite the opposite.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Child abuse overwhelmingly happens in the circle of influence of said kids. So the internet will never have a significant impact. Try to explain that to angry and concerned parents...

blackoil 5y ago

It may not be as non-sensical as it sounds. Unlike Whatsapp, FB messenger is tied to a public profile, where people extensively share their life. This allows a predator to get contextual info like age, likes/dislikes, family problems and more which helps them in finding a victim and set a trap for the child.

mgraczyk 5y ago
That makes sense, but I didn't understand the point very well from the article because it seems to flip back and forth between unrelated criticisms of Facebook. I don't know enough about the structure of predation to have an opinion on the merits of the point, but it sure seems like a reasonable excuse for delaying E2EE.
jrochkind1 5y ago
In the US, law enforcement surveilling all messages in order to analyze to look for suspected child abusers would be illegal. We're talking about hoping that private companies will do it on their own (or be required to do it somehow?) in order to turn over to the police what their systems flag as looking like predators? And that it's important E2EE doesn't interfere with that?
- swsieber 5y ago
  I don't think that's it. If you do suspect that someone is a child predator, encrypting what is probably the most likely stashes of incriminating evidence would make things harder to build a strong case. I could see a lack of encryption being useful even when everyone follows rules that many would see as too strict (I don't fall in that camp, I think). I don't think trade off is worth it though.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > In the US, law enforcement surveilling all messages in order to analyze to look for suspected child abusers would be illegal What if they do it to look for suspected terrorists (which is legal) and accidentally also check for child abusers? > We're talking about hoping that private companies will do it on their own (or be required to do it somehow?) in order to turn over to the police what their systems flag as looking like predators IIRC Facebook already do this, and have been criticized by charities in the domain that it isn't enough.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    I don't believe it's legal to do for terrorism, but they may do it anyway semi-secretly, and it is currently legally contested (and they keep it semi-secret to make it harder to contest legally). So, what if they do? By reports they do indeed already do this, and it was earnestly explained in the tweet[1] linked elsewhere in this thread by a FB developer that the delay in E2EE is to make sure they can continue to do it. I don't like it, but as you note, others have other opinions. I think we should be clear that it's what's going on, what is we're talking about when we talk about delaying encryption to protect children, exactly what it is that is being proposed. Others in this thread still think "oh no that's not what we're talking about they'd never do that." Let's be clear about what we're talking about, whether we support it or not. [1]: https://twitter.com/elegant_wallaby/status/1462845336288825344 https://twitter.com/elegant_wallaby/status/14628453362888253...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
candiodari 5y ago
Whereas government files on children, often used by child predators who work for/in/with child services or their private contractors contain both public AND non-public info (e.g. medical data on the child) helping out even more. Child services child predators often stand out due to the enormous number of children they victimize. Current record is over one thousand. You might wonder how one person can even do that, as you physically don't have enough time to do that as one person, so ... prepare to be disgusted: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-exp... Yet, somehow, despite child predators using these institutions regularly (in fact even the loverboys often complained about often recruit girls from child services institutions), there is no need to do anything about that. In fact, quite the opposite.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Child abuse overwhelmingly happens in the circle of influence of said kids. So the internet will never have a significant impact. Try to explain that to angry and concerned parents...