6 ms·

The dirty secret of the web is that the past 2 decades of VLOPs have led to a stunning increase in CSAM and sex trafficking. Governments know this from initial

by a13o 3y ago

The dirty secret of the web is that the past 2 decades of VLOPs have led to a stunning increase in CSAM and sex trafficking. Governments know this from initial good-faith participation by VLOPs to escalate abuse to authorities. They were quickly overwhelmed. We know all this because of investigative journalism done by NYT in 2019. VLOPs are interested in E2E encryption now because it lets them ignore their sexual abuse problem by making it untraceable and therefor unreportable. No normal user needs or benefits from E2E encryption on Facebook. We don't need a blanket ban of E2E encryption but we do need regulation around who can use it and when. Preventing VLOPs from smoke-screening their platform abuse is a good middle ground. Many idealistic technocrats on the web already believe E2E encryption is an absolute moral good, so it's hard to even get the conversation started. As evidenced by the extremely simplistic black & white takes in this thread. VLOPs are counting on this when they market E2E features as in their users' best interest.

pie_flavor 3y ago
> No normal user needs or benefits from E2E encryption on Facebook. Not the encryption baked into facebook chat, but most certainly the encryption baked into the HTTPS they're accessing facebook through.
superkuh 3y ago
I suppose that massive increase of cases is why the special "sex trafficking" courts the US government set up in 2018 shut down for lack of cases. This is just anothe scare like the red scare, terrorism, etc. Very little actual impact or events but huge response in terms of getting re-elected and showing eyes ads so it's blown way out of proportion in the public discourse. Basing your laws off the needs of corporate persons instead of human persons is bad policy. Authoritarianism might look good in the short term but $godwin. Will you suggest going after the post office for people mailing illegal items too? It's misplaced. The person who commits the crime commits the crime.
- a13o 3y ago
  Here is the investigation I referenced. Consider reading the report and grounding your argument in reality. This stuff is happening. What should we do about it? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Whatever we can do without restricting E2EE.
  - leadingthenet 3y ago
    The answer you don't want to hear and is bound to be extremely unpopular is: nothing. If the only way to effectively rein in online CSAM is to fatally compromise encryption, that's a price not worth paying. We have already sacrificed many a personal liberties at the altar of "think of the kids!!", and, as you mention, it's yet to prove effective at the task. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
    - a13o 3y ago
      You're conflating transport encryption and E2E encryption. The OP article is only about E2E encryption, which is not fully implemented on Facebook to date, so not allowing them (and other VLOPs in the same position) to implement it just maintains the status quo. My claim is that these platforms have a proven history of elevating CSAM on the web and are turning to a currently unused technology, E2E encryption of messages and groups, to crystalize the problem instead of tackle it. This has nothing to do with theoretical beliefs about encryption in general, the value of transport encryption used by Facebook and nearly every other website, or personal liberties. Nobody needed E2E encryption on Facebook in its first couple decades. Nothing is being sacrificed if they don't implement it now. The sacrifice happens when the _do_ implement it. We sacrifice the ability to do anything about the CSAM influencers profiting on the platform. I'm not even arguing for a blanket ban of E2EE. What I'm arguing for is that we don't allow VLOPs to use it.
      - leadingthenet 3y ago
lost_tourist 3y ago
We don't need to ban E2E, especially not "to think of the children". I am thinking of my children when I say I don't want any ban on encryption at all. I want them to enjoy their lives and the internet as I have, without the government constantly sticking its nose in. That's what “thinking of the children” really means if you're being sincere about it.

by a13o 3y ago

pie_flavor 3y ago

> No normal user needs or benefits from E2E encryption on Facebook. Not the encryption baked into facebook chat, but most certainly the encryption baked into the HTTPS they're accessing facebook through.

superkuh 3y ago

I suppose that massive increase of cases is why the special "sex trafficking" courts the US government set up in 2018 shut down for lack of cases. This is just anothe scare like the red scare, terrorism, etc. Very little actual impact or events but huge response in terms of getting re-elected and showing eyes ads so it's blown way out of proportion in the public discourse. Basing your laws off the needs of corporate persons instead of human persons is bad policy. Authoritarianism might look good in the short term but $godwin. Will you suggest going after the post office for people mailing illegal items too? It's misplaced. The person who commits the crime commits the crime.

a13o 3y ago
Here is the investigation I referenced. Consider reading the report and grounding your argument in reality. This stuff is happening. What should we do about it? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
- int_19h 3y ago
  Whatever we can do without restricting E2EE.
- leadingthenet 3y ago
  The answer you don't want to hear and is bound to be extremely unpopular is: nothing. If the only way to effectively rein in online CSAM is to fatally compromise encryption, that's a price not worth paying. We have already sacrificed many a personal liberties at the altar of "think of the kids!!", and, as you mention, it's yet to prove effective at the task. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
  - a13o 3y ago
    You're conflating transport encryption and E2E encryption. The OP article is only about E2E encryption, which is not fully implemented on Facebook to date, so not allowing them (and other VLOPs in the same position) to implement it just maintains the status quo. My claim is that these platforms have a proven history of elevating CSAM on the web and are turning to a currently unused technology, E2E encryption of messages and groups, to crystalize the problem instead of tackle it. This has nothing to do with theoretical beliefs about encryption in general, the value of transport encryption used by Facebook and nearly every other website, or personal liberties. Nobody needed E2E encryption on Facebook in its first couple decades. Nothing is being sacrificed if they don't implement it now. The sacrifice happens when the _do_ implement it. We sacrifice the ability to do anything about the CSAM influencers profiting on the platform. I'm not even arguing for a blanket ban of E2EE. What I'm arguing for is that we don't allow VLOPs to use it.
    - leadingthenet 3y ago

lost_tourist 3y ago

We don't need to ban E2E, especially not "to think of the children". I am thinking of my children when I say I don't want any ban on encryption at all. I want them to enjoy their lives and the internet as I have, without the government constantly sticking its nose in. That's what “thinking of the children” really means if you're being sincere about it.