> What exactly is your justification for regarding your right to privacy in your communication with your loved ones is more important than the right of the poli

> What exactly is your justification for regarding your right to privacy in your communication with your loved ones is more important than the right of the police to fight child abuse? Violation of privacy is harmful. The police is not supposed to cause unnecessary harm. Given that the vast majority of people are not child abusers, there will be a great amount of harm for no gain. And most child abusers will find ways to evade the surveillance. This is not even remotely close to a reasonable bargain. > If you really want people on the other side of the debate to understand you, you need to stop being so simplistic We were talking about the general population and how they perceive the same topic given different framings. Most people think in simplistic terms when it comes to topics that they don't actively engage with. > there are very good justifications for their positions if you remove the practical limitations of being able to stop abuse - which they do not understand, and I suspect a lot of people in tech even also fail to comprehend. Are there very good reasons to fight child abuse? Of course. But if non-technical people believe that there is a magical technology that can deliver what politicians claim then you have to challenge them to explain where their beliefs come from. And precisely because they actually don't understand the technology they have to admit that they actually can't form a well-founded opinion on it. You might not be able to make them understand why the practical limitations make this a bad idea, but you can make them understand that there is an important gap in their knowledge on the topic. And something that everyone can understand is: Not every solution is actually a good or even effective solution.