4 ms·

I'd like to advance a more productive argument for pro-privacy tech people. Often the reply is to claim that governments are lying when they try to 'protect chi

I'd like to advance a more productive argument for pro-privacy tech people. Often the reply is to claim that governments are lying when they try to 'protect children' and the like. Having at least some experience with international police orgs, I can say that significant resources are dedicated to online crime (including CSAM) and their 'lived reality' is very much expending significant resources because e2e prevents low-cost surveillance. So the attack line that 'none of this is sincere' is actively unhelpful -- since so much of it is sincere, it comes across at best naïve. A better line, imv, is this: assume present goverments are entirely sincere. It doesnt matter. We cannot know the intentions of future governments. And we have good reasons to suppose that governments, in general, require extraordinary systems of checks-and-balances to be prevented from abuse of power. So I'd advise not attacking people who are, very often, actually thinking of the children -- you're just antagonising the people in power. Rather, invite them to help you defend the liberal order of individual human rights that prevent state abuse of power. As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police. Enabling state abuse of power has a far far higher negative outcome than marginal increases to the difficulty of policing some crimes. In many cases, police agencies can find ways into criminal networks and can access messages using traditional policing. A better rhetorical strategy here is supporting policing, providing significant additional tech expert resources to police, significant funding for 'online detectives' -- whilst at the same time explaining the high risk against mass state incursion into all aspects of our lives.

zoky 3y ago
Not that I disagree with you at all, but what do you then say to the response that this is just a slippery slope fallacy?
- mjburgess 3y ago
  It's not a fallacy if you have a causal mechanism. I think it's fairly well-evidenced by history that there are many mechanisms by which states 'backslide' into abuse (indeed, that's the term used today). Human rights are an invention of liberal states, hard won, against state power -- why have any at all?
- wkat4242 3y ago
  The recent leak of the Europol document begging for access to all this proves it's not a fallacy. The wheels are already in motion.
sroussey 3y ago
It is not sincere because the sincere use case will be <1% of the real use case. In the case of encryption, when you design it broken, it is broken for everyone. So when you assume to spy on “criminals” (which could be some gay guy you want to put to death), you need to assume that they can spy on you as well (North Korea looking at Interpol).
- User3456335 3y ago
  Never attribute to malice, what can be adequately explained by incompetence. They simply don't understand the implications of what they are doing. They should involve more technologically savvy privacy experts.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Never attribute incompetence to a professional politics body. Those people are basically never acting on incompetence, or on competence for that matter. And stop trying to make excuses for people caught in malicious acts again and again.
    - pinusc 3y ago
      Precisely. If your job is a legislator, competence (or ability to delegate it) is part of the job description and, if you believe in democracy, a moral imperative. Thus, incompetence IS malice in such cases. There is such thing as wilful ignorance, as Aristotle condemned it millennia ago, and it is morally reprehensible.
  - sroussey 3y ago
    I think in this case, those prosecuting the change are not incompetent, or more precisely those prosecuting the breaking of encryption behind the scenes are quite competent. They just believe they can keep a secret, which they can’t. Those involved with CSAM et al are competent as well in their field, but don’t realize they are the pawn they are. The politicians though, sure, incompetent. No politician in the United States has an engineering degree, for example. So they are stupid enough to follow what someone tells them. Stupidity and fear and wonderful in others if you have an agenda.
poiop 3y ago
Unfortunately arguments like that don't make much political sense since those capabilities already exists. It isn't technical measures that protect rights but laws. A government could be draconian without surveillance technology. This sort of argument mainly appeals to technologist trying to deal with that they are making bank off private information. Snowden's "turnkey tyranny"-argument is okay but requires specific knowledge and imagines things that haven't happened which therefor is open to interpretation. I think the only real way to prevent something like this is to provide an alternative but that is also unlikely since it implies responsibility which the tech industry doesn't like.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  Alternative to what exactly? Where is detailed methodology of planning CSAM? Where are trusted data that shows how many real abusers are on platforms like those mentioned to be monitored? Where are warrants that those data collection won't be abused by officials? There will always be other platforms that provide secure communication for sharing illegal files. Massive collection of child porn sounds perfect for potential consumers. Also, most of child abuser's are among people that are not strangers to victims, so they don't even need IM for communication.
wkat4242 3y ago
> And we have good reasons to suppose that governments, in general, require extraordinary systems of checks-and-balances to be prevented from abuse of power. Look up this guy Snowden and the secret surveillance and rubber-stamping courts he exposed. So much for checks and balances lol.
wkat4242 3y ago
> Having at least some experience with international police orgs, I can say that significant resources are dedicated to online crime (including CSAM) and their 'lived reality' is very much expending significant resources because e2e prevents low-cost surveillance. Yes, good police work costs money. Considering the importance of child sex abuse this shouldn't be an issue. And how effective do they think this is going to be? Obviously once a few people are caught the pedos are going to find another way of sharing their filth. Either offline or more obscure apps. Meaning the old police work like infiltration will be necessary again. Meanwhile us citizens end up with surveillance forever. It's not going to help the children, it's only going to make life worse for everyone. > So I'd advise not attacking people who are, very often, actually thinking of the children -- you're just antagonising the people in power. Rather, invite them to help you defend the liberal order of individual human rights that prevent state abuse of power. As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police. I doubt that. The US has done exactly that already since 2001. It's pretty clear to me that Europe just wants to follow suit. The boys want their toys. And they are antagonising us obviously. What I don't understand is how they themselves want to live in a society where their every word is being monitored.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  I don't think the US' overreaction to terrorism and online security threats in 2001 was an attempt to spy on citizens in general. Legal grey areas made that possible, and it is the 'obvious' thing to do when you're setting up a digital security infrastructure. The first duty of a government is to preserve the existence of the state (incl. society, etc.) -- when faced with apparent existential threats, they often severely overreact. Very few people's intentions here are to 'monitor' every word of every citizen -- this is really a strange, i think quite naive, misreading of the situation. That might be the net consequence, to some degree, but basically no one involved intends it. And if you go around thinking this, and accusing people of it, I don't think you're going to be very effective. Rather each person involved is just laser focused on preventing existential threats to the state. Secret police, and so on, even arent a real attempt to monitor citizens -- theyre just to prevent a rebellion, ie., an existential threat. Large scale online crime is a threat to the state -- mass organised crime, new digital mafias etc. present a rival to the state's monopoly on violence, and it has a duty to prevent this from happening. Almost 'at all costs'. If it were ever to be that online life became sufficiently unmonitorable that mass organisation of criminal networks were made possible, we'd really not be talking about 'privacy' at all -- see, for example, developing nations where this is status quo. I suspect the reality is that we're rich enough to support a basically effecitve police force, and most importantly, not to have large pools of desperate young people with no jobs. This is really what enables us to make these demands for rights. The logic of state action is basically well-motivated, even if it has to be prevented for the high negative concequences it may have.
DangitBobby 3y ago
What I don't understand is how career politicians could possibly not already understand how tyrannical governments can take advantage of draconian policies after a supposedly benevolent government is replaced. They 1) don't understand this principle which is absolutely terrifying and frankly implausible 2) understand and don't care, better to save hundreds of children now and let the continent of billions be crushed undet authoritarianism later or 3) they actually are just doing a "think of the children" to get the power they want. None of those options make me think informing them of the the error of their ways will yield any fruit.
- petre 3y ago
  They've been brainwashed by the lobbysts who provide CSAM on behalf of Demi Moore and Cutcher's foundation. I've signed petitions like these in the past, accomplished nothing other than getting harrassed with endless mail on other NGO "causes" to support.
candiodari 3y ago
> As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police. Then why aren't they working in the caring for kids who've been abused? THAT's the infastructure that need more resources, and they bloody hell know it. Finding CSAM is not what needs more resources.

zoky 3y ago

Not that I disagree with you at all, but what do you then say to the response that this is just a slippery slope fallacy?

mjburgess 3y ago
It's not a fallacy if you have a causal mechanism. I think it's fairly well-evidenced by history that there are many mechanisms by which states 'backslide' into abuse (indeed, that's the term used today). Human rights are an invention of liberal states, hard won, against state power -- why have any at all?
wkat4242 3y ago
The recent leak of the Europol document begging for access to all this proves it's not a fallacy. The wheels are already in motion.

sroussey 3y ago

It is not sincere because the sincere use case will be <1% of the real use case. In the case of encryption, when you design it broken, it is broken for everyone. So when you assume to spy on “criminals” (which could be some gay guy you want to put to death), you need to assume that they can spy on you as well (North Korea looking at Interpol).

User3456335 3y ago
Never attribute to malice, what can be adequately explained by incompetence. They simply don't understand the implications of what they are doing. They should involve more technologically savvy privacy experts.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Never attribute incompetence to a professional politics body. Those people are basically never acting on incompetence, or on competence for that matter. And stop trying to make excuses for people caught in malicious acts again and again.
  - pinusc 3y ago
    Precisely. If your job is a legislator, competence (or ability to delegate it) is part of the job description and, if you believe in democracy, a moral imperative. Thus, incompetence IS malice in such cases. There is such thing as wilful ignorance, as Aristotle condemned it millennia ago, and it is morally reprehensible.
- sroussey 3y ago
  I think in this case, those prosecuting the change are not incompetent, or more precisely those prosecuting the breaking of encryption behind the scenes are quite competent. They just believe they can keep a secret, which they can’t. Those involved with CSAM et al are competent as well in their field, but don’t realize they are the pawn they are. The politicians though, sure, incompetent. No politician in the United States has an engineering degree, for example. So they are stupid enough to follow what someone tells them. Stupidity and fear and wonderful in others if you have an agenda.

poiop 3y ago

Unfortunately arguments like that don't make much political sense since those capabilities already exists. It isn't technical measures that protect rights but laws. A government could be draconian without surveillance technology. This sort of argument mainly appeals to technologist trying to deal with that they are making bank off private information. Snowden's "turnkey tyranny"-argument is okay but requires specific knowledge and imagines things that haven't happened which therefor is open to interpretation. I think the only real way to prevent something like this is to provide an alternative but that is also unlikely since it implies responsibility which the tech industry doesn't like.

t0bia_s 3y ago
Alternative to what exactly? Where is detailed methodology of planning CSAM? Where are trusted data that shows how many real abusers are on platforms like those mentioned to be monitored? Where are warrants that those data collection won't be abused by officials? There will always be other platforms that provide secure communication for sharing illegal files. Massive collection of child porn sounds perfect for potential consumers. Also, most of child abuser's are among people that are not strangers to victims, so they don't even need IM for communication.

wkat4242 3y ago

> And we have good reasons to suppose that governments, in general, require extraordinary systems of checks-and-balances to be prevented from abuse of power. Look up this guy Snowden and the secret surveillance and rubber-stamping courts he exposed. So much for checks and balances lol.

wkat4242 3y ago

> Having at least some experience with international police orgs, I can say that significant resources are dedicated to online crime (including CSAM) and their 'lived reality' is very much expending significant resources because e2e prevents low-cost surveillance. Yes, good police work costs money. Considering the importance of child sex abuse this shouldn't be an issue. And how effective do they think this is going to be? Obviously once a few people are caught the pedos are going to find another way of sharing their filth. Either offline or more obscure apps. Meaning the old police work like infiltration will be necessary again. Meanwhile us citizens end up with surveillance forever. It's not going to help the children, it's only going to make life worse for everyone. > So I'd advise not attacking people who are, very often, actually thinking of the children -- you're just antagonising the people in power. Rather, invite them to help you defend the liberal order of individual human rights that prevent state abuse of power. As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police. I doubt that. The US has done exactly that already since 2001. It's pretty clear to me that Europe just wants to follow suit. The boys want their toys. And they are antagonising us obviously. What I don't understand is how they themselves want to live in a society where their every word is being monitored.

mjburgess 3y ago
I don't think the US' overreaction to terrorism and online security threats in 2001 was an attempt to spy on citizens in general. Legal grey areas made that possible, and it is the 'obvious' thing to do when you're setting up a digital security infrastructure. The first duty of a government is to preserve the existence of the state (incl. society, etc.) -- when faced with apparent existential threats, they often severely overreact. Very few people's intentions here are to 'monitor' every word of every citizen -- this is really a strange, i think quite naive, misreading of the situation. That might be the net consequence, to some degree, but basically no one involved intends it. And if you go around thinking this, and accusing people of it, I don't think you're going to be very effective. Rather each person involved is just laser focused on preventing existential threats to the state. Secret police, and so on, even arent a real attempt to monitor citizens -- theyre just to prevent a rebellion, ie., an existential threat. Large scale online crime is a threat to the state -- mass organised crime, new digital mafias etc. present a rival to the state's monopoly on violence, and it has a duty to prevent this from happening. Almost 'at all costs'. If it were ever to be that online life became sufficiently unmonitorable that mass organisation of criminal networks were made possible, we'd really not be talking about 'privacy' at all -- see, for example, developing nations where this is status quo. I suspect the reality is that we're rich enough to support a basically effecitve police force, and most importantly, not to have large pools of desperate young people with no jobs. This is really what enables us to make these demands for rights. The logic of state action is basically well-motivated, even if it has to be prevented for the high negative concequences it may have.

DangitBobby 3y ago

What I don't understand is how career politicians could possibly not already understand how tyrannical governments can take advantage of draconian policies after a supposedly benevolent government is replaced. They 1) don't understand this principle which is absolutely terrifying and frankly implausible 2) understand and don't care, better to save hundreds of children now and let the continent of billions be crushed undet authoritarianism later or 3) they actually are just doing a "think of the children" to get the power they want. None of those options make me think informing them of the the error of their ways will yield any fruit.

petre 3y ago
They've been brainwashed by the lobbysts who provide CSAM on behalf of Demi Moore and Cutcher's foundation. I've signed petitions like these in the past, accomplished nothing other than getting harrassed with endless mail on other NGO "causes" to support.

candiodari 3y ago

> As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police. Then why aren't they working in the caring for kids who've been abused? THAT's the infastructure that need more resources, and they bloody hell know it. Finding CSAM is not what needs more resources.