3 ms·

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 p

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...

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...