6 ms·

The extreme hysteria created by anything related to children often seems to be carte blanche to destroy privacy and implement backdoors in applications. Most ch

The extreme hysteria created by anything related to children often seems to be carte blanche to destroy privacy and implement backdoors in applications. Most child abuse comes from family members (which must be solved at the source), and the ultra extreme cases simply make awful law (doing away with E2EE or instituting mass surveillance to catch an incredibly small minority is absurd). Much like other 'tough on crime' measures (of which destroying E2EE is one) the real problems need to be solved not at the point of consumption (drugs, guns, gangs, cartels) but at the root causes. Getting rid of E2EE just opens the avenue for the abuse of us by the government but in no way guarantees we'll meaningfully make children safer. And no, we are not 'condoning' it when we declare E2EE an overall good thing. Real life is about tradeoffs not absolutes, and the tradeoff here is protection from the government for potentially billions vs. maybe arresting a few thousand more real criminals. This is a standard utilitarian tradeoff that 'condones' nothing.

practice9 3y ago
> which must be solved at the source Governments are not good at this type of thing. It requires careful analysis, planning and actual decisions. But slap on a regulation and require private companies to do the hard work for you - now we are talking!
- autoexec 3y ago
  Don't worry, we fill our homes and pockets with enough cameras and microphones from private companies that the government can require the monitoring of everyone in every family 24/7 to make sure we're finally safe!
gnfargbl 3y ago
> Most child abuse comes from family members (which must be solved at the source) Yes. Since becoming an abuser is a process and not a moment, part of the solution must be making access to CSAM much harder. > And no, we are not 'condoning' it when we declare E2EE an overall good thing. Agreed. I'm sorry if I worded things in a way that caused you to see an implication which was not intended. To be clear: E2EE is a good thing. Championing E2EE is not equivalent to condoning CSAM. What I did say is that in failing to try and provide any meaningful solutions to this unintended consequence of E2EE, the industry is effectively condoning the problem. > This is a standard utilitarian tradeoff If that's the best we can do, I'm very disappointed. That position says that to achieve privacy, I must tolerate CSAM. I want both privacy and for us not to tolerate CSAM. I don't know what the solution is, but that is what I wish the industry were aiming for. At the moment, the industry seems to be aiming for nothing but a shrug of the shoulders.
- danbruc 3y ago
  That position says that to achieve privacy, I must tolerate CSAM. I want both privacy and for us not to tolerate CSAM. Not true, you can have privacy and at the same time not tolerate child pornography, those are two perfectly compatible positions and arguably the current state. What you can not have - by definition - is privacy on the one hand and on the other hand no privacy in order to look for child pornography. You can still fight child pornography in any other way, but when it comes to privacy, you have to make a choice - give people their privacy or look through their stuff for illegal content, you can not have both. If you have enough evidence, a judge might even grant law enforcement the permission for privacy violating measures, it should just not be the default position that your privacy gets violated.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - salawat 3y ago
    ...Now that, is a well conceived viewpoint, but I still argue policy-wise, that no penalties can conscionably be assessed for failure to engage in said activity without spreading the taint of deputization, which de-facto unmakes your stance. As a government deputy, you don't have that privacy. If you are not compelled to act as a deputy of the State, I can accept you escalating to NCMEC, but we also have to accept there is no recourse for providers who turn a blind eye to the whole thing. Failure to recognize this perpetuates the fundamental inconsistency.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  It is not clear if access to child pornography increases, decreases, or has no significant effect on child sex abuse.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_por...
  - 3y ago
clnq 3y ago
> The extreme hysteria created by anything related to children often seems to be carte blanche to destroy privacy and implement backdoors in applications. Yes, and you can tell because the proposed solutions attack privacy when alternative solutions exist. For example, simply deleting CSAM material from devices locally without involving any other parties could have achieved the goals without privacy violations. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to argue for not involving other parties (like the police) in cases where real CSAM is found on someone’s device. Same as most people, I think that CSAM is morally reprehensible and really harmful to society. But just deleting it en-masse would have been an effective and privacy-respecting solution. I think it’s important to see nuance even in things we don’t like to think about. Not everything that has a price tag has a price. We were told we needed to give up privacy, but that wasn’t necessary to take CSAM out of circulation.
- salawat 3y ago
  Ah... But you see, now you're arguing in "bad faith" because you're trying to protect the kiddie diddlers! ...Understand I don't see it that way and applaud you for your way of thinking. I too have had to wrestle with the very uncomfortable "bed fellows" as it were that adhering to consistent application of principles inevitably results in. The fact remains though that in a large swathe of the population, the ripping off and sacrifice of personal privacy is considered a small price to pay to inflict harm on that subpopulation. My issue comes in in that once you make the exception for one subpopulation, the slope is set. Though even your "just delete it" has dystopian ramifications. Imagine that were implemented like Tianenmen Square? Recordings that are not blessed? You're still leaving in somebody's hands essentially executive control over what information can be allowed to exist, which is an unconscionably powerful lever to build. This is one of those rare circumstances where "do nothing and clean up the mess" may be the most wise course of action.

practice9 3y ago

> which must be solved at the source Governments are not good at this type of thing. It requires careful analysis, planning and actual decisions. But slap on a regulation and require private companies to do the hard work for you - now we are talking!

autoexec 3y ago
Don't worry, we fill our homes and pockets with enough cameras and microphones from private companies that the government can require the monitoring of everyone in every family 24/7 to make sure we're finally safe!

gnfargbl 3y ago

> Most child abuse comes from family members (which must be solved at the source) Yes. Since becoming an abuser is a process and not a moment, part of the solution must be making access to CSAM much harder. > And no, we are not 'condoning' it when we declare E2EE an overall good thing. Agreed. I'm sorry if I worded things in a way that caused you to see an implication which was not intended. To be clear: E2EE is a good thing. Championing E2EE is not equivalent to condoning CSAM. What I did say is that in failing to try and provide any meaningful solutions to this unintended consequence of E2EE, the industry is effectively condoning the problem. > This is a standard utilitarian tradeoff If that's the best we can do, I'm very disappointed. That position says that to achieve privacy, I must tolerate CSAM. I want both privacy and for us not to tolerate CSAM. I don't know what the solution is, but that is what I wish the industry were aiming for. At the moment, the industry seems to be aiming for nothing but a shrug of the shoulders.

danbruc 3y ago
That position says that to achieve privacy, I must tolerate CSAM. I want both privacy and for us not to tolerate CSAM. Not true, you can have privacy and at the same time not tolerate child pornography, those are two perfectly compatible positions and arguably the current state. What you can not have - by definition - is privacy on the one hand and on the other hand no privacy in order to look for child pornography. You can still fight child pornography in any other way, but when it comes to privacy, you have to make a choice - give people their privacy or look through their stuff for illegal content, you can not have both. If you have enough evidence, a judge might even grant law enforcement the permission for privacy violating measures, it should just not be the default position that your privacy gets violated.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- salawat 3y ago
  ...Now that, is a well conceived viewpoint, but I still argue policy-wise, that no penalties can conscionably be assessed for failure to engage in said activity without spreading the taint of deputization, which de-facto unmakes your stance. As a government deputy, you don't have that privacy. If you are not compelled to act as a deputy of the State, I can accept you escalating to NCMEC, but we also have to accept there is no recourse for providers who turn a blind eye to the whole thing. Failure to recognize this perpetuates the fundamental inconsistency.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pseudalopex 3y ago
It is not clear if access to child pornography increases, decreases, or has no significant effect on child sex abuse.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_por...
- 3y ago

clnq 3y ago

> The extreme hysteria created by anything related to children often seems to be carte blanche to destroy privacy and implement backdoors in applications. Yes, and you can tell because the proposed solutions attack privacy when alternative solutions exist. For example, simply deleting CSAM material from devices locally without involving any other parties could have achieved the goals without privacy violations. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to argue for not involving other parties (like the police) in cases where real CSAM is found on someone’s device. Same as most people, I think that CSAM is morally reprehensible and really harmful to society. But just deleting it en-masse would have been an effective and privacy-respecting solution. I think it’s important to see nuance even in things we don’t like to think about. Not everything that has a price tag has a price. We were told we needed to give up privacy, but that wasn’t necessary to take CSAM out of circulation.

salawat 3y ago
Ah... But you see, now you're arguing in "bad faith" because you're trying to protect the kiddie diddlers! ...Understand I don't see it that way and applaud you for your way of thinking. I too have had to wrestle with the very uncomfortable "bed fellows" as it were that adhering to consistent application of principles inevitably results in. The fact remains though that in a large swathe of the population, the ripping off and sacrifice of personal privacy is considered a small price to pay to inflict harm on that subpopulation. My issue comes in in that once you make the exception for one subpopulation, the slope is set. Though even your "just delete it" has dystopian ramifications. Imagine that were implemented like Tianenmen Square? Recordings that are not blessed? You're still leaving in somebody's hands essentially executive control over what information can be allowed to exist, which is an unconscionably powerful lever to build. This is one of those rare circumstances where "do nothing and clean up the mess" may be the most wise course of action.