5 ms·

> We want social media companies to confirm they will not implement end-to-end encryption until they have the technology in place to ensure children will not be

by Veen 5y ago

> We want social media companies to confirm they will not implement end-to-end encryption until they have the technology in place to ensure children will not be put at greater risk as a result. This seems disengenuous. Is there any way to implement E2E encryption that wouldn't "put children at greater risk" if we accept that framing? I understand why the Government and child welfare organizations don't like the idea of E2E. It would, in fact, make it more difficult to identify child abuse on social media, all else being equal. But the attempt to balance privacy with child welfare doesn't have to mean abandoning privacy altogether. An alternative would be to require social media companies to allow parents to monitor their children's social media activity. Or to have "child-friendly" accounts without E2E. It doesn't seem necessary to impose a blanket ban on E2E, which would almost certainly be abused.

Miner49er 5y ago
> Is there any way to implement E2E encryption that wouldn't "put children at greater risk" if we accept that framing? Yeah, that's what Apple's CSAM detection system is basically. They scan the content before encrypting.
- Veen 5y ago
  True, but that wasn't exactly welcomed either.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Arguably, that's not E2E encrypted, since there is a potential vulnerability placed between the user and the start of the encryption.
stephen_g 5y ago
Exactly. “Can we have homes that don’t have cameras in every room streaming to law enforcement, without ensuring children will not be put at greater risk?”
aunty_helen 5y ago
You’re letting them control the narrative. If child’s messages don’t have encryption, the first thing a predator does is move them to an encrypted messaging platform. This is about the massive open door that is messenger and the full sweep the five eyes get from this.
- Veen 5y ago
  I was more or less of your view until my 11-year-old niece was groomed and ended up sending naked pictures of herself to a 25-year-old man. Now, that incident was discovered because my niece's friend told her parents, but I do wonder whether, that aside, her parents would have found out at all. I am not in favour of banning E2E, but I do think it's foolhardy to deprive parents and law enforcement of any means to monitor children's social media activity.
  - boffinAudio 5y ago
    I think the biggest problem is that parents have less and less right - or indeed, ability - to monitor their childrens communications and function as decent and responsible parents. Inevitably, were this implemented, someone would find a way to turn it against parents' rights to monitor their children. And confounding this issue is the fact that the major platforms (Facebook, et al.) simply don't want parents to have this kind of control over their children, because it will effect their bottom line. Children with less adult supervision tend to be far more easily manipulated. Its not just child diddlers who want this manipulation to proceed un-impeded by parental oversight - its Facebook, et al. too! So this evil campaign is going to get a lot of corporate support, I fear. For the wrong damn reasons. (Disclaimer: am an angry parent who is sick of the shit my kids have to deal with online... but who will also NEVER give up personal encryption as a right.)
  - aunty_helen 5y ago
    No body is depriving parents access to their children’s phones with this. Parents guiding and supervising technology use is about as old as the internet itself. Think of my children is just another step along the line of pearl clutching. But I’ll do you one better, I had a covert video taken of me and circulated around the internet and school that I went to. Would e2e encryption made any difference to that? No.
RHSeeger 5y ago
> Is there any way to implement E2E encryption that wouldn't "put children at greater risk" if we accept that framing? Given that a lack of E2E encryption means that it is impossible for children to have private conversations with each other, it also means that predators have an easier time watching those conversations and using them to do harm. As such, the mere act of enabling E2E encryption reduces the risk to children.
simion314 5y ago
>an alternative would be to require social media companies to allow parents to monitor their children's social media activity. Or to have "child-friendly" accounts without E2E. It doesn't seem necessary to impose a blanket ban on E2E, which would almost certainly be abused. Exactly , make this giant companies have 2 apps Facebook Messager and FB messanger for Kids iMessage and iMessage for Kids then is you responsability as a parent to setup your child device to enter the correc tbirth date of the user, then the App Store could only allow the "kids" version of the application. But now what? you have shit AI flagging pictures and badly paid people around the world attempting to classify is the picture is "bad" ? The problem seems to me to have a much more effective solution, hire some real cops or social workers to answer reports from children and parents, when some creep asks for such material you could easily report them, then FB,Apple or whoever will have to help the authorities and stop this illegal activity. Make an educational compaign to educate the children and parents and let them know where to report the issue, explain also the punishment and make some public examples.
- James-Livesey 5y ago
  > ... is you responsability as a parent to setup your child device to enter the correc tbirth date of the user, then the App Store could only allow the "kids" version of the application. The problem is is that there is still a large portion of parents who will give their children devices despite being less educated on the dangers of online safety regarding children. I think that tech companies should ask parents whether they are buying a device for a child at the point of sale (since children are unlikely to purchase a device for themselves; instead they wish for a device for birthday/Christmas), and at that point, those companies should in some way inform those parents about the dangers of online use. Better yet (though could further complicate the process of distributing devices) is to give the option for parents to set up parental controls while they are in the process of purchasing a device. Implementing parental controls (which tech companies have largely done) that allows for parents to monitor their childrens' devices seems to be the only viable way to allow for both CSAM mitigation and end-to-end encryption to coexist, in my opinion.
  - zarzavat 5y ago

by Veen 5y ago

Miner49er 5y ago

> Is there any way to implement E2E encryption that wouldn't "put children at greater risk" if we accept that framing? Yeah, that's what Apple's CSAM detection system is basically. They scan the content before encrypting.

Veen 5y ago
True, but that wasn't exactly welcomed either.
xboxnolifes 5y ago
Arguably, that's not E2E encrypted, since there is a potential vulnerability placed between the user and the start of the encryption.

stephen_g 5y ago

Exactly. “Can we have homes that don’t have cameras in every room streaming to law enforcement, without ensuring children will not be put at greater risk?”

aunty_helen 5y ago

You’re letting them control the narrative. If child’s messages don’t have encryption, the first thing a predator does is move them to an encrypted messaging platform. This is about the massive open door that is messenger and the full sweep the five eyes get from this.

Veen 5y ago
I was more or less of your view until my 11-year-old niece was groomed and ended up sending naked pictures of herself to a 25-year-old man. Now, that incident was discovered because my niece's friend told her parents, but I do wonder whether, that aside, her parents would have found out at all. I am not in favour of banning E2E, but I do think it's foolhardy to deprive parents and law enforcement of any means to monitor children's social media activity.
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  I think the biggest problem is that parents have less and less right - or indeed, ability - to monitor their childrens communications and function as decent and responsible parents. Inevitably, were this implemented, someone would find a way to turn it against parents' rights to monitor their children. And confounding this issue is the fact that the major platforms (Facebook, et al.) simply don't want parents to have this kind of control over their children, because it will effect their bottom line. Children with less adult supervision tend to be far more easily manipulated. Its not just child diddlers who want this manipulation to proceed un-impeded by parental oversight - its Facebook, et al. too! So this evil campaign is going to get a lot of corporate support, I fear. For the wrong damn reasons. (Disclaimer: am an angry parent who is sick of the shit my kids have to deal with online... but who will also NEVER give up personal encryption as a right.)
- aunty_helen 5y ago
  No body is depriving parents access to their children’s phones with this. Parents guiding and supervising technology use is about as old as the internet itself. Think of my children is just another step along the line of pearl clutching. But I’ll do you one better, I had a covert video taken of me and circulated around the internet and school that I went to. Would e2e encryption made any difference to that? No.

RHSeeger 5y ago

> Is there any way to implement E2E encryption that wouldn't "put children at greater risk" if we accept that framing? Given that a lack of E2E encryption means that it is impossible for children to have private conversations with each other, it also means that predators have an easier time watching those conversations and using them to do harm. As such, the mere act of enabling E2E encryption reduces the risk to children.

simion314 5y ago

>an alternative would be to require social media companies to allow parents to monitor their children's social media activity. Or to have "child-friendly" accounts without E2E. It doesn't seem necessary to impose a blanket ban on E2E, which would almost certainly be abused. Exactly , make this giant companies have 2 apps Facebook Messager and FB messanger for Kids iMessage and iMessage for Kids then is you responsability as a parent to setup your child device to enter the correc tbirth date of the user, then the App Store could only allow the "kids" version of the application. But now what? you have shit AI flagging pictures and badly paid people around the world attempting to classify is the picture is "bad" ? The problem seems to me to have a much more effective solution, hire some real cops or social workers to answer reports from children and parents, when some creep asks for such material you could easily report them, then FB,Apple or whoever will have to help the authorities and stop this illegal activity. Make an educational compaign to educate the children and parents and let them know where to report the issue, explain also the punishment and make some public examples.

James-Livesey 5y ago
> ... is you responsability as a parent to setup your child device to enter the correc tbirth date of the user, then the App Store could only allow the "kids" version of the application. The problem is is that there is still a large portion of parents who will give their children devices despite being less educated on the dangers of online safety regarding children. I think that tech companies should ask parents whether they are buying a device for a child at the point of sale (since children are unlikely to purchase a device for themselves; instead they wish for a device for birthday/Christmas), and at that point, those companies should in some way inform those parents about the dangers of online use. Better yet (though could further complicate the process of distributing devices) is to give the option for parents to set up parental controls while they are in the process of purchasing a device. Implementing parental controls (which tech companies have largely done) that allows for parents to monitor their childrens' devices seems to be the only viable way to allow for both CSAM mitigation and end-to-end encryption to coexist, in my opinion.
- zarzavat 5y ago