5 ms·

The reason is, and always has been, to enable lazy police work. They won't have to do their jobs if facebook will just tell them who the criminals are.

by oauea 4y ago

kwanbix 4y ago
So, if everything is encrypted, how do you expect the police to catch ped0philes, for example?
- jaywalk 4y ago
  "So if everyone has the right to privacy, how are the police supposed to do their job?" Somehow the police managed to catch bad guys before mass surveillance existed. Maybe they should look at that?
- themitigating 4y ago
  Ever think there aren't as many pedophiles as you think? Maybe many have their own children to abuse or organizations with trust, like the church, in which encryption doesn't mean anything.
- dns_snek 4y ago
  State of the art encryption has become so widespread and well known that anyone with the tiniest interest in privacy can download one of the hundreds of open source E2EE messaging platforms to use for their criminal activities. This line of thinking has always struck me as extremely odd - as soon as current, presumably E2EE, methods of communication are tapped into for intelligence and law enforcement purposes, criminals can and will switch to projects that don't comply with the backdoor laws. It's a violation of privacy that only law-abiding citizens will be subject to, for everyone else it's optional. You might catch a wave of them off guard in the beginning, but in the long term all you end up doing is surveilling innocent people and maybe catching lowest hanging fruit - the types of people who are already dumb enough to share their criminal activities on Facebook.
  - intrasight 4y ago
    borrowing from gun reasoning, if encryption is made a crime, then only criminals will use encryption.
    - dns_snek 4y ago
      That goes way beyond the scope of legislation in question. Suggesting that something akin to the great firewall of china could be deployed in the EU is unrealistic - having said that, it sure feels surreal when expression and support of these authoritarian ideas by EU representatives doesn't lead to immediate political suicide.
      - intrasight 4y ago
        First, I was being sarcastic. But in terms of "political suicide", remember that politicians a) have info we don't, b) have fear mongering elements screaming in their ears, and c) have surveillance lobbyists taking them out to dinner.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Why do you think a Great European Firewall is unrealistic?
        dns_snek 4y ago
        It would likely break dozens of individual member state laws protecting freedom of speech, privacy, net neutrality, and the scope of policing powers which would have to be changed or grossly violated. This seems, to me, culturally and politically untenable on a national level because the population at large hasn't been condition to accept iron fist authoritarian rule and gross violations of their personal liberties.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  Actual criminals don’t only communicate with just other criminals. They actually have to get out and do crime… So police can catch them the way they always did, when things were organised by talking together in private when nobody else could listen to them.
ethbr0 4y ago
Definitely think that's why it happens, at the tactical level. Why make your job harder than it could be?
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Another way of phrasing this might be "people will not have to pay as much tax if technological tools are used to assess crimes rather than traditional high-touch policing (ie high man-hours)". Generally people want all the [other] criminals catching, but do not want all resources of the state used solely for policing. Optimisations then are preferred even if there is collateral harm.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  In goriest form, I think of this as the drone argument. Is it better to put boots on the ground, some of whom may die and who may cause collateral casualties in executing their mission, or a (hypothetically idealized) drone that kills only the target? Still haven't decided if I have, or there even exists, a good answer to that.
  - oauea 4y ago
    The answer is yes. Murdering other humans who have no way to see it coming and no way to defend themselves is deeply evil. Especially when you factor in the murder of innocents (also referred to as collateral damage), and the facts that mistakes happen.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      But people are people. They get nervous/scared in situations. Maybe the boots on the ground snap and murder a bunch of civilians they thought were threatening. A perfect drone wouldn't do that. But on the other hand, a perfect drone has no cost of use, other than monetary. Which seems far too low a bar to set for the seriousness of taking a life.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      What if the "other human" is in the process of murdering people at that very point?
      - oauea 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

The reason is, and always has been, to enable lazy police work. They won't have to do their jobs if facebook will just tell them who the criminals are.

by oauea 4y ago

The reason is, and always has been, to enable lazy police work. They won't have to do their jobs if facebook will just tell them who the criminals are.

kwanbix 4y ago

So, if everything is encrypted, how do you expect the police to catch ped0philes, for example?

jaywalk 4y ago
"So if everyone has the right to privacy, how are the police supposed to do their job?" Somehow the police managed to catch bad guys before mass surveillance existed. Maybe they should look at that?
themitigating 4y ago
Ever think there aren't as many pedophiles as you think? Maybe many have their own children to abuse or organizations with trust, like the church, in which encryption doesn't mean anything.
dns_snek 4y ago
State of the art encryption has become so widespread and well known that anyone with the tiniest interest in privacy can download one of the hundreds of open source E2EE messaging platforms to use for their criminal activities. This line of thinking has always struck me as extremely odd - as soon as current, presumably E2EE, methods of communication are tapped into for intelligence and law enforcement purposes, criminals can and will switch to projects that don't comply with the backdoor laws. It's a violation of privacy that only law-abiding citizens will be subject to, for everyone else it's optional. You might catch a wave of them off guard in the beginning, but in the long term all you end up doing is surveilling innocent people and maybe catching lowest hanging fruit - the types of people who are already dumb enough to share their criminal activities on Facebook.
- intrasight 4y ago
  borrowing from gun reasoning, if encryption is made a crime, then only criminals will use encryption.
  - dns_snek 4y ago
    That goes way beyond the scope of legislation in question. Suggesting that something akin to the great firewall of china could be deployed in the EU is unrealistic - having said that, it sure feels surreal when expression and support of these authoritarian ideas by EU representatives doesn't lead to immediate political suicide.
    - intrasight 4y ago
      First, I was being sarcastic. But in terms of "political suicide", remember that politicians a) have info we don't, b) have fear mongering elements screaming in their ears, and c) have surveillance lobbyists taking them out to dinner.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Why do you think a Great European Firewall is unrealistic?
      - dns_snek 4y ago
        It would likely break dozens of individual member state laws protecting freedom of speech, privacy, net neutrality, and the scope of policing powers which would have to be changed or grossly violated. This seems, to me, culturally and politically untenable on a national level because the population at large hasn't been condition to accept iron fist authoritarian rule and gross violations of their personal liberties.
stephen_g 4y ago
Actual criminals don’t only communicate with just other criminals. They actually have to get out and do crime… So police can catch them the way they always did, when things were organised by talking together in private when nobody else could listen to them.

ethbr0 4y ago

Definitely think that's why it happens, at the tactical level. Why make your job harder than it could be?

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

Another way of phrasing this might be "people will not have to pay as much tax if technological tools are used to assess crimes rather than traditional high-touch policing (ie high man-hours)". Generally people want all the [other] criminals catching, but do not want all resources of the state used solely for policing. Optimisations then are preferred even if there is collateral harm.

ethbr0 4y ago
In goriest form, I think of this as the drone argument. Is it better to put boots on the ground, some of whom may die and who may cause collateral casualties in executing their mission, or a (hypothetically idealized) drone that kills only the target? Still haven't decided if I have, or there even exists, a good answer to that.
- oauea 4y ago
  The answer is yes. Murdering other humans who have no way to see it coming and no way to defend themselves is deeply evil. Especially when you factor in the murder of innocents (also referred to as collateral damage), and the facts that mistakes happen.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    But people are people. They get nervous/scared in situations. Maybe the boots on the ground snap and murder a bunch of civilians they thought were threatening. A perfect drone wouldn't do that. But on the other hand, a perfect drone has no cost of use, other than monetary. Which seems far too low a bar to set for the seriousness of taking a life.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    What if the "other human" is in the process of murdering people at that very point?
    - oauea 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]