3 ms·

It seems a big majority in this thread agrees this is bad, and user privacy is key. I wonder, what do you think about the Government's counter-argument, that e

It seems a big majority in this thread agrees this is bad, and user privacy is key. I wonder, what do you think about the Government's counter-argument, that effectively user privacy is secondary to child protection? I'm just playing devil's advocate, and not endorsing this position. - Is the internet a major medium for child exploitation? - If this bill puts N offenders in prison per year, is it worth it? What is N? I agree this is bad for internet privacy, and likely just a privacy grab by the government. Equally, I think discussing it without referencing the stated goals ("it's just a power grab", "we have a right to privacy", "this won't save any children because, erm, it won't") is counterproductive to getting the point across to a wider population.

Taek 3y ago
I would love to see data driven statistics on the number of pedophiles that are caught each year owing to the onerous requirements that are being put on our internet infrastructure. Not just pedophiles though. How many criminals are government backdoors catching? How often do NSL's turn up data or leads that allow the government to catch criminals that would otherwise go free? How much does KYC/AML enforcement (which causes a huge clamping effect on our economy) actually control the actions of criminals, versus inhibit the daily lives of citizens? I'm so confident that the evidence would show that these rights-violating laws are a net harm to society that I think all we need to push for is data, and that alone will highlight how terrible these ideas are.
- versteegen 3y ago
  We can instead look at the statistics for scanning of communications that aren't yet end-to-end encrypted, which will provide a good indication for the effect of bypassing encryption. [Edit:] I know this is not a great source, but from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-urges-meta-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-urges-meta... > Currently, 800 predators a month are arrested by UK law enforcement agencies and up to 1,200 children are safeguarded from child sexual abuse following information provided by social media companies. There are also some interesting NCMEC statistics which provide a sense of scale, at https://www.missingkids.org/gethelpnow/cybertipline/cybertiplinedata https://www.missingkids.org/gethelpnow/cybertipline/cybertip... > The CyberTipline receives reports from the public and online electronic service providers (ESPs). ... U.S. based ESPs are legally required to report instances of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or “apparent child pornography” to the CyberTipline when they become aware of them, but there are no legal requirements regarding proactive efforts to detect CSAM (Reports are also in various other categories aside from CSAM.) > In 2022, NCMEC staff escalated over 49,000 reports to law enforcement as the reported incident was urgent in nature or there was information that a child was in imminent danger. ... NCMEC designated 49% of the reports from the tech industry as “actionable” when referring them to law enforcement in 2022 (49000 is a heavily filtered fraction of the 32 million total reports.)
jalapenos 3y ago
The bigger problem is people taking the government's statements at face value. No, they're not doing it because of think-of-the-children. Whenever we mention their talking points, which both we and them know are a lie, we tacitly support their cause. And their cause is that they feel scared of losing control of things, and they entered a profession where power was the goal, and they're looking at their contemporaries in China with envy. No sicko is going to be caught by this, certainly not with the publicity. They'll keep on with their sick ways. The only people this is aimed at is the people as a whole.
stainablesteel 3y ago
> that effectively user privacy is secondary to child protection i think you should have the right to protect your child from the government, given the nature of things that people abuse bureaucracy to achieve today. there are blatant infringements on freedom of religion so the government wants to decide what is and isn't harmful to children why do they want this? because they screwed up with immigration. the elite circles of the government assumed the immigrants would assimilate with time, but that goal has not been achieved. so it seems like they're taking the dystopian approach to fixing a problem rather than admitting they were wrong in the first place, and their dystopian solution is to decide what is "harmful to children"
ipnon 3y ago
We have an inalienable right to privacy. That means it doesn’t matter what others say or do, it’s ours to have. The UK government is now failing to guarantee this. “He who sacrifices liberty for safety deserves neither and will lose both.”
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  Reasonable people would say, there are no inalienable rights, in extremis we give some up for something else. Anyone can be stopped by the police given a reasonable pretext, for example, despite an ironclad right to freedom. We like it because it saves us from violent people, for example. The government is saying that it is nuking online privacy because children. To argue against, it is not sufficient to say you have a holy and unmovable right to it, because you don't really have a holy unmovable right to anything - everything gives in the end. Personal freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Hence I'm curious about the other side of arguments. The "this is bad because it limits my freedom, yes, AND... doesn't achieve the goals?".
matheusmoreira 3y ago
These politicians couldn't care less about children, they're just the perfect political weapon to make the population accept never-ending amounts of tyranny. They say "children" and the next thing you know they are surveilling and policing your literal thoughts and speech. For your own good, of course!
zarzavat 3y ago
It’s nothing to do with children. This government fought hard against feeding children in schools, something that India manages to do. They delayed rebuilding crumbling schools until the last moment when they were required to act. The government conveniently only cares about children when they can use them as pawns to obtain more power. Their framing of the issue is malicious, by accepting it you fall into their trap. Better to ignore it and go with your own frame.
tim333 3y ago
Here's something from gov.uk >New poll finds 7 in 10 adults want social media firms to do more to tackle harmful content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-adults-want-social-media-firms-to-do-more-to-tackle-harmful-content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-ad... Not really stats on online harm but there's a public demand which is probably what both political parties are reacting to.

Taek 3y ago

I would love to see data driven statistics on the number of pedophiles that are caught each year owing to the onerous requirements that are being put on our internet infrastructure. Not just pedophiles though. How many criminals are government backdoors catching? How often do NSL's turn up data or leads that allow the government to catch criminals that would otherwise go free? How much does KYC/AML enforcement (which causes a huge clamping effect on our economy) actually control the actions of criminals, versus inhibit the daily lives of citizens? I'm so confident that the evidence would show that these rights-violating laws are a net harm to society that I think all we need to push for is data, and that alone will highlight how terrible these ideas are.

versteegen 3y ago
We can instead look at the statistics for scanning of communications that aren't yet end-to-end encrypted, which will provide a good indication for the effect of bypassing encryption. [Edit:] I know this is not a great source, but from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-urges-meta-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-urges-meta... > Currently, 800 predators a month are arrested by UK law enforcement agencies and up to 1,200 children are safeguarded from child sexual abuse following information provided by social media companies. There are also some interesting NCMEC statistics which provide a sense of scale, at https://www.missingkids.org/gethelpnow/cybertipline/cybertiplinedata https://www.missingkids.org/gethelpnow/cybertipline/cybertip... > The CyberTipline receives reports from the public and online electronic service providers (ESPs). ... U.S. based ESPs are legally required to report instances of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or “apparent child pornography” to the CyberTipline when they become aware of them, but there are no legal requirements regarding proactive efforts to detect CSAM (Reports are also in various other categories aside from CSAM.) > In 2022, NCMEC staff escalated over 49,000 reports to law enforcement as the reported incident was urgent in nature or there was information that a child was in imminent danger. ... NCMEC designated 49% of the reports from the tech industry as “actionable” when referring them to law enforcement in 2022 (49000 is a heavily filtered fraction of the 32 million total reports.)

jalapenos 3y ago

The bigger problem is people taking the government's statements at face value. No, they're not doing it because of think-of-the-children. Whenever we mention their talking points, which both we and them know are a lie, we tacitly support their cause. And their cause is that they feel scared of losing control of things, and they entered a profession where power was the goal, and they're looking at their contemporaries in China with envy. No sicko is going to be caught by this, certainly not with the publicity. They'll keep on with their sick ways. The only people this is aimed at is the people as a whole.

stainablesteel 3y ago

> that effectively user privacy is secondary to child protection i think you should have the right to protect your child from the government, given the nature of things that people abuse bureaucracy to achieve today. there are blatant infringements on freedom of religion so the government wants to decide what is and isn't harmful to children why do they want this? because they screwed up with immigration. the elite circles of the government assumed the immigrants would assimilate with time, but that goal has not been achieved. so it seems like they're taking the dystopian approach to fixing a problem rather than admitting they were wrong in the first place, and their dystopian solution is to decide what is "harmful to children"

ipnon 3y ago

We have an inalienable right to privacy. That means it doesn’t matter what others say or do, it’s ours to have. The UK government is now failing to guarantee this. “He who sacrifices liberty for safety deserves neither and will lose both.”

rich_sasha 3y ago
Reasonable people would say, there are no inalienable rights, in extremis we give some up for something else. Anyone can be stopped by the police given a reasonable pretext, for example, despite an ironclad right to freedom. We like it because it saves us from violent people, for example. The government is saying that it is nuking online privacy because children. To argue against, it is not sufficient to say you have a holy and unmovable right to it, because you don't really have a holy unmovable right to anything - everything gives in the end. Personal freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Hence I'm curious about the other side of arguments. The "this is bad because it limits my freedom, yes, AND... doesn't achieve the goals?".

matheusmoreira 3y ago

These politicians couldn't care less about children, they're just the perfect political weapon to make the population accept never-ending amounts of tyranny. They say "children" and the next thing you know they are surveilling and policing your literal thoughts and speech. For your own good, of course!

zarzavat 3y ago

It’s nothing to do with children. This government fought hard against feeding children in schools, something that India manages to do. They delayed rebuilding crumbling schools until the last moment when they were required to act. The government conveniently only cares about children when they can use them as pawns to obtain more power. Their framing of the issue is malicious, by accepting it you fall into their trap. Better to ignore it and go with your own frame.

tim333 3y ago

Here's something from gov.uk >New poll finds 7 in 10 adults want social media firms to do more to tackle harmful content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-adults-want-social-media-firms-to-do-more-to-tackle-harmful-content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-ad... Not really stats on online harm but there's a public demand which is probably what both political parties are reacting to.