3 ms·

Nations unite against Facebook over encryption plans ‘that endanger children’

8 points by sbuttgereit 3y ago

zaphod420 3y ago
Encryption does not endanger children.
rhamzeh 3y ago
I can't believe I'm on the side of Facebook on this one. The problem is "nations" don't represent the people in those nations, and those in power are just as capable as big tech in to relying on scare tactics and duplicitous messaging and misleading the populace in order to push forward their own agendas. Fighting encryption has nothing to do with "saving the children", no more than all the misguided disastrous crusades against one thing or another over the past 50 years have been about saving the children. I come from a place where in the 2000s the religious institutions through a hissy fit about certain music and subcultures and how they must be suppressed in order to "save the children". Fighting encryption may not be religious in nature but is born out of the same need for power and control.
- _8j50 3y ago
  > The problem is "nations" don't represent the people in those nations The hell they don't! And who are bigtech companies to decide who the legitimate leader or a nation is? Whatever government is recognized by your government as legitimate gets to call the shots over those people. Democracy is not a human right, and even if it was it is democratic nations that are demanding this to the most part. You don't get to claim you are really fighting for the people when you have no legitimate reason to make that claim. Even if the people wanted privacy at the cost of more harm to their fellow man, the people need to use the law to enforce that, either you have the rule of law, the rule of man or the rule of criminals.
croes 3y ago
Because without E2E in messaging apps they have no way to encrypt things /s
_8j50 3y ago
I will keep saying this: whatever the government's true intent might be, this issue isn't going away. You can develop good/sound tech that either decincientivizes the extrems of platform abuse or detects such abuse while preserving privacy in all other cases and doing all this in a publicly auditable way or the alternative is secret backdoors and device exploitation with zero oversight and transparency. Look, I'm on HN, I'm into tech, I work in tech. But nothing absolutley nothing provided by tech is worth tolerating abuse of innocents. There is no social, legal or historical expectation of infallible privacy for communication. Governments have always had the right to invade privacy provided there is a legal reason to do so. The idea that technology can be used to undermine the first and most basic reason of a government's existence (the security of their people and in this case the most innocent members of the people) has only been a thing since around the 90s and the price has been high. You can't build bridges only the bad guys can blow up? Then build bridges anyone can blow up but with a high cost. Anyone can blow up real world bridges with enough money on their hands already! I am not suggesting weaking e2ee crypto but requiring lawful intercept capabilities into messaging apps. Not scanning messages (different topic) for everyone, but giving law enforcement access to the app on the device after being presented with a lawful order. Criminals will just use something else? The let the government do something else about those other things while catching most that still use popular apps (most robbers use the front door fyi, reduction not elimination of crime is the goal). You don't think the government can be trusted? So what, we live in a society. The contract we have with the government is they develop a probable cause and get a judge to sign off on a warrant and in return we expect them to provide security. You don't like that contract then let's talk about changing it, but if even one innocent child can be spared these nightmares (or even not so innocent adults!) then technologists are conspiring with criminals if they knowingly refuse to obey laws that have existed long before electricity was even a thing! If the demand is to weaken encryption to allow dragnet surveillance then unless that is lawful in your country (it is not in the US) then why are we even talking about it? If they have a warrant, give them access. FFS! There are RFCs on how to provide lawful intercept access. I am not suggesting anything new. Why is signal or whatever app anymore special than at&t or the postal service? The government and the mailman can open my mail and we vote, send credit cards/checks, passports, and many other documents much more critical than anything we say on signal. Please, show me reason here. I am not saying all this just to start an argument or to be contrarian. What am I missing? https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3924.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3924.html
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Yep, our politicians care so much about children they have been housing unaccompanied refugee children in hotels with no guardians. Many of them have gone missing. For children who are citizens they took away child benefits for poorer families and school meals. Schools are falling down and underfunded. We can't find teachers even for the more prestigious schools. Children have been strip searched by police with no supervision at schools. All of their actions just scream "we must stop harm to children", don't they? /s

8 points by sbuttgereit 3y ago

Encryption does not endanger children.

I can't believe I'm on the side of Facebook on this one. The problem is "nations" don't represent the people in those nations, and those in power are just as capable as big tech in to relying on scare tactics and duplicitous messaging and misleading the populace in order to push forward their own agendas. Fighting encryption has nothing to do with "saving the children", no more than all the misguided disastrous crusades against one thing or another over the past 50 years have been about saving the children. I come from a place where in the 2000s the religious institutions through a hissy fit about certain music and subcultures and how they must be suppressed in order to "save the children". Fighting encryption may not be religious in nature but is born out of the same need for power and control.

_8j50 3y ago
> The problem is "nations" don't represent the people in those nations The hell they don't! And who are bigtech companies to decide who the legitimate leader or a nation is? Whatever government is recognized by your government as legitimate gets to call the shots over those people. Democracy is not a human right, and even if it was it is democratic nations that are demanding this to the most part. You don't get to claim you are really fighting for the people when you have no legitimate reason to make that claim. Even if the people wanted privacy at the cost of more harm to their fellow man, the people need to use the law to enforce that, either you have the rule of law, the rule of man or the rule of criminals.

croes 3y ago

Because without E2E in messaging apps they have no way to encrypt things /s

_8j50 3y ago

I will keep saying this: whatever the government's true intent might be, this issue isn't going away. You can develop good/sound tech that either decincientivizes the extrems of platform abuse or detects such abuse while preserving privacy in all other cases and doing all this in a publicly auditable way or the alternative is secret backdoors and device exploitation with zero oversight and transparency. Look, I'm on HN, I'm into tech, I work in tech. But nothing absolutley nothing provided by tech is worth tolerating abuse of innocents. There is no social, legal or historical expectation of infallible privacy for communication. Governments have always had the right to invade privacy provided there is a legal reason to do so. The idea that technology can be used to undermine the first and most basic reason of a government's existence (the security of their people and in this case the most innocent members of the people) has only been a thing since around the 90s and the price has been high. You can't build bridges only the bad guys can blow up? Then build bridges anyone can blow up but with a high cost. Anyone can blow up real world bridges with enough money on their hands already! I am not suggesting weaking e2ee crypto but requiring lawful intercept capabilities into messaging apps. Not scanning messages (different topic) for everyone, but giving law enforcement access to the app on the device after being presented with a lawful order. Criminals will just use something else? The let the government do something else about those other things while catching most that still use popular apps (most robbers use the front door fyi, reduction not elimination of crime is the goal). You don't think the government can be trusted? So what, we live in a society. The contract we have with the government is they develop a probable cause and get a judge to sign off on a warrant and in return we expect them to provide security. You don't like that contract then let's talk about changing it, but if even one innocent child can be spared these nightmares (or even not so innocent adults!) then technologists are conspiring with criminals if they knowingly refuse to obey laws that have existed long before electricity was even a thing! If the demand is to weaken encryption to allow dragnet surveillance then unless that is lawful in your country (it is not in the US) then why are we even talking about it? If they have a warrant, give them access. FFS! There are RFCs on how to provide lawful intercept access. I am not suggesting anything new. Why is signal or whatever app anymore special than at&t or the postal service? The government and the mailman can open my mail and we vote, send credit cards/checks, passports, and many other documents much more critical than anything we say on signal. Please, show me reason here. I am not saying all this just to start an argument or to be contrarian. What am I missing? https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3924.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3924.html

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

Yep, our politicians care so much about children they have been housing unaccompanied refugee children in hotels with no guardians. Many of them have gone missing. For children who are citizens they took away child benefits for poorer families and school meals. Schools are falling down and underfunded. We can't find teachers even for the more prestigious schools. Children have been strip searched by police with no supervision at schools. All of their actions just scream "we must stop harm to children", don't they? /s