3 ms·

There’s no logical fallacy here, just a factual disagreement over the extent to which E2E encryption actually puts children at risk. Supposing that it does, tha

by foldr 5y ago

There’s no logical fallacy here, just a factual disagreement over the extent to which E2E encryption actually puts children at risk. Supposing that it does, that would be reasonable grounds for opposing it (so long as countervailing considerations were also take into account). This particular Simpsons joke is pretty tired at this point, and it's often just used to short circuit any discussion of potential harms to children. I am not in favor of banning E2EE, by the way. It’s just that the claim that E2EE puts children at risk should be met with a carefully considered factual response that respects the intelligence of people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse, rather than this reflexive ironic cry of “think of the children!”.

krageon 5y ago
> should be met with a carefully considered factual response Engaging with baseless propaganda preying on the unthinking parts of everyone by "carefully considered factual response" means you lose. Every single time. For this reason it is a naive strategy.
- foldr 5y ago
  The point is not to engage with propaganda, but with the ordinary people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse enabled by social media. This is a real problem, so I don't think it's fair to talk about 'preying on [people's] unthinking parts'. I should think that there must be even less to be gained by responding smugly with rote slogans and links to clips from the Simpsons. Who is going to be persuaded of anything by that? What you need to show is either that (i) kids are already pretty safe online, or (ii) that the situation can be significantly improved without increased surveillance, or (iii) that the current level of child sexual abuse is a price worth paying to preserve important freedoms. But making one of those arguments would require actual thought and effort.
sbuk 5y ago
The issue is that it looks as though the very real issue of children being exploited is being used by the UK government to undermine E2EE. This is frankly vile, but given the vileness of this government, not at all surprising. Of course, the Murdock media will label anyone challenging this stance as an apologist.
- foldr 5y ago
  To a lot of people on HN, it's obvious that the freedom is to use E2EE is fundamental, and that hardly any other consideration could override that. To a lot of people who aren't on HN, it's obvious that more needs to be done to combat child sexual abuse online. Rather than fuming at the government, it would be more useful in the long run if people could come up with actual ideas for combating child sexual abuse that don't require increased surveillance. Otherwise we are left with the unattractive (to most people) alternative to just ignoring the problem. I mean sure, the government might have bad motivations in this instance. But there is a real problem that a lot of regular people are sincerely concerned about, without sinister ulterior motivates.
stephen_g 5y ago
I would say that the implication that enabling more surveillance == safety is a fallacy. It’s assumed by the people pushing these kind of things, but is not necessarily true.
zelphirkalt 5y ago
> I am not in favor of banning E2E, by the way. It’s just that the claim that E2E puts children at risk should be met with a carefully considered factual response that respects the intelligence of people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse, rather than this reflexive ironic cry of “think of the children!”. Yes, we should all argue properly ... If only politicians were educated enough about the things they try to push or prevent, they could actually do that. Anyway, even if we discussed this properly, it would only answer half the question. The other half is: "Are children safer without that E2E encryption?" Most likely not, as they themselves send each other pictures and stuff, which can then be intercepted by some people. Everything they communicate using their spy phones, ah sorry, I meant "smart phones" of course, at their young age of -- well, what age? maybe 6 or 7? Or even younger? -- will be potentially up for grabs. And then that is only the question about children. That is one tiny speck of the whole picture, which is not discussed. So yes, we should argue this properly, but also we should then open up the whole debate about society as a whole. There is a huge debate to be had there, before anyone should even consider making any decisions.
deadbunny 5y ago
Surely it would be quite easy for them to provide statistics of how many cases of $crimes were solved/stopped because of unencrypted messaging. My impression seems to be that it's almost always reported long after the fact or some vigilante posing as a child. Neither of which would be prevented by e2ee.

by foldr 5y ago

krageon 5y ago

> should be met with a carefully considered factual response Engaging with baseless propaganda preying on the unthinking parts of everyone by "carefully considered factual response" means you lose. Every single time. For this reason it is a naive strategy.

foldr 5y ago
The point is not to engage with propaganda, but with the ordinary people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse enabled by social media. This is a real problem, so I don't think it's fair to talk about 'preying on [people's] unthinking parts'. I should think that there must be even less to be gained by responding smugly with rote slogans and links to clips from the Simpsons. Who is going to be persuaded of anything by that? What you need to show is either that (i) kids are already pretty safe online, or (ii) that the situation can be significantly improved without increased surveillance, or (iii) that the current level of child sexual abuse is a price worth paying to preserve important freedoms. But making one of those arguments would require actual thought and effort.

sbuk 5y ago

The issue is that it looks as though the very real issue of children being exploited is being used by the UK government to undermine E2EE. This is frankly vile, but given the vileness of this government, not at all surprising. Of course, the Murdock media will label anyone challenging this stance as an apologist.

foldr 5y ago
To a lot of people on HN, it's obvious that the freedom is to use E2EE is fundamental, and that hardly any other consideration could override that. To a lot of people who aren't on HN, it's obvious that more needs to be done to combat child sexual abuse online. Rather than fuming at the government, it would be more useful in the long run if people could come up with actual ideas for combating child sexual abuse that don't require increased surveillance. Otherwise we are left with the unattractive (to most people) alternative to just ignoring the problem. I mean sure, the government might have bad motivations in this instance. But there is a real problem that a lot of regular people are sincerely concerned about, without sinister ulterior motivates.

stephen_g 5y ago

I would say that the implication that enabling more surveillance == safety is a fallacy. It’s assumed by the people pushing these kind of things, but is not necessarily true.

zelphirkalt 5y ago

> I am not in favor of banning E2E, by the way. It’s just that the claim that E2E puts children at risk should be met with a carefully considered factual response that respects the intelligence of people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse, rather than this reflexive ironic cry of “think of the children!”. Yes, we should all argue properly ... If only politicians were educated enough about the things they try to push or prevent, they could actually do that. Anyway, even if we discussed this properly, it would only answer half the question. The other half is: "Are children safer without that E2E encryption?" Most likely not, as they themselves send each other pictures and stuff, which can then be intercepted by some people. Everything they communicate using their spy phones, ah sorry, I meant "smart phones" of course, at their young age of -- well, what age? maybe 6 or 7? Or even younger? -- will be potentially up for grabs. And then that is only the question about children. That is one tiny speck of the whole picture, which is not discussed. So yes, we should argue this properly, but also we should then open up the whole debate about society as a whole. There is a huge debate to be had there, before anyone should even consider making any decisions.

deadbunny 5y ago

Surely it would be quite easy for them to provide statistics of how many cases of $crimes were solved/stopped because of unencrypted messaging. My impression seems to be that it's almost always reported long after the fact or some vigilante posing as a child. Neither of which would be prevented by e2ee.