3 ms·

How can people argue against this. I hate the world government and I support this. At least there is Ashton Kutcher and Thorn, and Apple and CSAM, I mean privat

How can people argue against this. I hate the world government and I support this. At least there is Ashton Kutcher and Thorn, and Apple and CSAM, I mean private corporations are going to save this planet, not the government. People hide evil trying to look good, and I just dream of Cordwainer Smith’s eternal menschenjaegers surviving out of time to hunt bad people. People on this forum who make fun of UK weakening encryption have never cared about someone who could have been taken advantage of.

knaik94 4y ago
I don't think you care about or can empathize with other people being taken advantage if you think weakening encryption helps the victims in vulnerable situations.
- mentater 4y ago
  What the hell are you talking about? When has weak encryption ever risked something for a proletariat consumer on their iPad?
loup-vaillant 4y ago
Weakening encryption this way will also enable many ways to abuse people. And make no mistake, CSAM producers and consumers will move to networks that aren't under UK jurisdiction. This law will change nothing. It's pure virtue signalling, and you're falling for it.
- mentater 4y ago
  You are right, I am wrong, weakening encryption abuses people the same way horrible people abuse children.
  - knaik94 4y ago
    Weakening encryption makes it easy for people in power to take advantage and, for example, installing software on the computer or router that let's them monitor what the victim in this situation does or says online. This doesn't even have to be a government or corporation, it could be the person abusing children. Weakening encryption gives software the ability to do that. E2E encryption strongly hinder that if not stops that ability. Not everyone grows up a loving environment. I urge you to look up statistics regarding the relationship between the abused and abuser in the majority of situations.
  - loup-vaillant 4y ago
    I didn't say that. I said that this law will change nothing. I said that this law will have no effect. I said that this law will not reduce abuse. And the cost of this big heap of nothing? Weakened encryption and mass surveillance, which will enable other, different kinds of abuse (mostly not on children so of course it's not the same). Are you sure this is an appropriate price to pay?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    How far are you willing to take it? Given that most child abuse happens at home, and most abusers are family, it would seem that mandatory surveillance cameras in every residence would help quite a lot; much more so than anything you could do online, anyway. Of course, this is also very intrusive, but if your threshold is "it's okay unless it's worse than the child abuse that it is likely to prevent", then it would seem to pass that. Unless you have other criteria?

knaik94 4y ago

I don't think you care about or can empathize with other people being taken advantage if you think weakening encryption helps the victims in vulnerable situations.

mentater 4y ago
What the hell are you talking about? When has weak encryption ever risked something for a proletariat consumer on their iPad?

loup-vaillant 4y ago

Weakening encryption this way will also enable many ways to abuse people. And make no mistake, CSAM producers and consumers will move to networks that aren't under UK jurisdiction. This law will change nothing. It's pure virtue signalling, and you're falling for it.

mentater 4y ago
You are right, I am wrong, weakening encryption abuses people the same way horrible people abuse children.
- knaik94 4y ago
  Weakening encryption makes it easy for people in power to take advantage and, for example, installing software on the computer or router that let's them monitor what the victim in this situation does or says online. This doesn't even have to be a government or corporation, it could be the person abusing children. Weakening encryption gives software the ability to do that. E2E encryption strongly hinder that if not stops that ability. Not everyone grows up a loving environment. I urge you to look up statistics regarding the relationship between the abused and abuser in the majority of situations.
- loup-vaillant 4y ago
  I didn't say that. I said that this law will change nothing. I said that this law will have no effect. I said that this law will not reduce abuse. And the cost of this big heap of nothing? Weakened encryption and mass surveillance, which will enable other, different kinds of abuse (mostly not on children so of course it's not the same). Are you sure this is an appropriate price to pay?
- int_19h 4y ago
  How far are you willing to take it? Given that most child abuse happens at home, and most abusers are family, it would seem that mandatory surveillance cameras in every residence would help quite a lot; much more so than anything you could do online, anyway. Of course, this is also very intrusive, but if your threshold is "it's okay unless it's worse than the child abuse that it is likely to prevent", then it would seem to pass that. Unless you have other criteria?