3 ms·

Break-ins are also not a technological problem, but even a simple lock helps - a lock that can trivially be picked. Setting up the perimeter, a technological th

Break-ins are also not a technological problem, but even a simple lock helps - a lock that can trivially be picked. Setting up the perimeter, a technological thing, sends the psychological message that there's a barrier, the insides are for people with access only. It doesn't prevent break-ins, but the frequency is reduced significantly.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
Interesting point. So you're saying that censoring everyone's speech and permanently breaking E2E encryption is like a lock? That it sends a psychological message that CSAM is not allowed on the internet? I don't think I agree. I think that would be more like having to hand the police a copy of the key for every lock you install.
- npteljes 3y ago
  I don't agree with the backdooring proposals at all, but neither do I agree with the counter argument of "this is a people problem, so technology won't solve it". Getting back to the locks example, in reality, the police can and do open any door they please. The locks are simply weak, and if the locks aren't, the constructions are. So they have no problem with people locking up, because they can override it whenever. I don't think there's an appropriate technological solution to people abusing secrecy. But people opting into surveillance can be seen as a social solution to counter such abuse. It's basically the "I have nothing to hide" argument, but not as an argument, but a practical application. In this scenario, opting in to surveillance would be a social signal that one is not an abuser, and so, this would make resisting surveillance a signal to side with the abusers. If this would gain traction somehow, it would be like Japan and its porn censorship law. I don't think any politician there seriously thinks that the measly censorship does anything, but they also don't want to be the pervert politician who goes against the moral law.
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    > I don't think there's an appropriate technological solution to people abusing secrecy. That's not the problem. The problem is people abusing children. We keep losing sight of this when discussing the issue. People sharing bad photos is not a problem. The problem is that those images are depictions of horrific actual abuse of innocent children. If we stop people taking photos of the abuse, it doesn't stop the abuse. And it's the abuse that we need to stop. Your point about surveillance doesn't solve the problem. An abuser can put their hand up to have every byte they send on the internet monitored, and then abuse their daughter where there aren't any cameras. The abuse is the problem, not the images. If we stop the abuse, then the images go away automatically. If we stop the images, the abuse continues. Again, this is not a technological problem: if we censor every byte on the internet then children will continue to be abused.
    - npteljes 3y ago
      I agree that it's the abuse that's the problem, but consider that technology greatly exacerbates this problem. Technology can currently provide private connections at scale, even somewhat private payment - and this opportunity is abused greatly, in part to further abuse children. The problem is, and I agree with this argument, that even perfect control over technology doesn't solve the child abuse issue, never mind the other abuses of private communication and payment. We do moderate content in case of social networks, hosting providers, platform providers and at a myriad of other places too. So technological measures are already taken. I'm doubtful we'll ever solve, or even greatly reduce, the child abuse issue, on a human level. I don't see that we (as in, the humanity) ever solved a people problem. I think with technology, we could at least try to work out something that amplify it further. Similar to how we have a framework on how to behave well, codified and enforced as law, instead of systems that would produce humans that don't do those things in the first place.

marcus_holmes 3y ago

Interesting point. So you're saying that censoring everyone's speech and permanently breaking E2E encryption is like a lock? That it sends a psychological message that CSAM is not allowed on the internet? I don't think I agree. I think that would be more like having to hand the police a copy of the key for every lock you install.

npteljes 3y ago
I don't agree with the backdooring proposals at all, but neither do I agree with the counter argument of "this is a people problem, so technology won't solve it". Getting back to the locks example, in reality, the police can and do open any door they please. The locks are simply weak, and if the locks aren't, the constructions are. So they have no problem with people locking up, because they can override it whenever. I don't think there's an appropriate technological solution to people abusing secrecy. But people opting into surveillance can be seen as a social solution to counter such abuse. It's basically the "I have nothing to hide" argument, but not as an argument, but a practical application. In this scenario, opting in to surveillance would be a social signal that one is not an abuser, and so, this would make resisting surveillance a signal to side with the abusers. If this would gain traction somehow, it would be like Japan and its porn censorship law. I don't think any politician there seriously thinks that the measly censorship does anything, but they also don't want to be the pervert politician who goes against the moral law.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  > I don't think there's an appropriate technological solution to people abusing secrecy. That's not the problem. The problem is people abusing children. We keep losing sight of this when discussing the issue. People sharing bad photos is not a problem. The problem is that those images are depictions of horrific actual abuse of innocent children. If we stop people taking photos of the abuse, it doesn't stop the abuse. And it's the abuse that we need to stop. Your point about surveillance doesn't solve the problem. An abuser can put their hand up to have every byte they send on the internet monitored, and then abuse their daughter where there aren't any cameras. The abuse is the problem, not the images. If we stop the abuse, then the images go away automatically. If we stop the images, the abuse continues. Again, this is not a technological problem: if we censor every byte on the internet then children will continue to be abused.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    I agree that it's the abuse that's the problem, but consider that technology greatly exacerbates this problem. Technology can currently provide private connections at scale, even somewhat private payment - and this opportunity is abused greatly, in part to further abuse children. The problem is, and I agree with this argument, that even perfect control over technology doesn't solve the child abuse issue, never mind the other abuses of private communication and payment. We do moderate content in case of social networks, hosting providers, platform providers and at a myriad of other places too. So technological measures are already taken. I'm doubtful we'll ever solve, or even greatly reduce, the child abuse issue, on a human level. I don't see that we (as in, the humanity) ever solved a people problem. I think with technology, we could at least try to work out something that amplify it further. Similar to how we have a framework on how to behave well, codified and enforced as law, instead of systems that would produce humans that don't do those things in the first place.