5 ms·

The platonic ideal of end-2-end encryption is that it is encrypted from my brain until it is received in my correspondent's brain. This is obviously not current

The platonic ideal of end-2-end encryption is that it is encrypted from my brain until it is received in my correspondent's brain. This is obviously not currently feasible. The closest approximation, is having a trusted client. This hashing scheme ruins the "trusted client" and I would no longer consider it e2e. Not to mention that a database of hashes is trivially to expand with content that isn't CSAM. Next thing we know the European equivalent of the Tankman picture is included in the hash to more effectively pursue political opposition or activists. This would destroy all ability to protest and singlehandedly eliminate democracy in Europe. I'm not exagerating. Climate activists in Germany are already put in "präventivhaft"[1] (preventive detention) before a civil disobedience / crime occurs. A scheme such as this would make it trivial to do at massive scales. [1]: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/staatsregierung-verteidigt-30-tage-haft-fuer-klima-aktivisten,TMaIMEM https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/staatsregierung-verteid...

viscousviolin 3y ago
Thirty days of preventive detention is outrageous. Way to go Bavaria.
throwaway290 3y ago
Then go ahead and suggest any credible way to combat the modern epidemic of child abuse instead of being like the rest of the thread making excuses for it. Your vocal sheltered armchair maximalism on this topic is not a moral option if you agree to equivalent compromises in all other areas of your life. Either suggest an alternative measure in this case, or show an example and fight against those other compromises (that limit your freedom and privacy) first. After all, many of them only concern yourself and your family rather than countless innocent victims who cannot stand up for themselves. If techies don't suggest any good alternative measure to prevent abuse then someone else will do it in a worse way and then welcome to panopticon. There's no black and white where tech touches human factor so learn to compromise.
- defrost 3y ago
  > the modern epidemic of child abuse How is there a modern epidemic of child abuse? It's always lurked in the shadows alongside, for example, marriages in 1655 to 14 year old brides ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Pepys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Pepys ). If anything the modern age can be characterised by shining a stronmger light on the subject rather than sweeping it under the carpet.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Bad example. 14 years is age of consent in some countries, it was acceptable age to marry in some US states until 2019 (still seems possible in Washington) and in many countries arranged marriage is not considered abuse today. The modern epidemic of abuse is a different beast. Never in the history it was possible to abuse a child, record the process or live broadcast it, and sell access to that to hundreds of people around the world. Technologies that enable this are only recently available (internet, e2e messaging and cryptocurrency). But even if we pretended it was the same in absolute numbers, that is irrelevant. Yes, things were bad 500 years ago. If people were getting massacred today, you can say that it's all the same as back then, we should not be concerned, it's simply shedding more light on the same old murder. (It's especially easy to dismiss it if you were in the industry that makes tools for it). Or you could call it out as violence, even if it is happening less than in the dark ages, and try to do something about it.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  The fact that you comment this emotionally loaded drivel illustrates perfectly why politicians and policy makers keep abusing "the children" to push through anti-democratic policies. It works great to convince short-sighted fools. If Democracy falls (which this would result in), everyone will be abused, including children. You can't solve a problem by making a worse problem. You may want to open a history book and look at what happens to a society when it becomes a panopticon of total surveillance.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    You haven't addressed the facts. A significant problem exists, measures will be taken, compromises will happen. You can choose what they will be or you can refuse and someone will choose it for you. None of the other compromises of freedom (gun controls, cash controls, security checks) have led to a fall of democracy. In fact, they are requisite for democracies to thrive. You are blowing a minor inconvenience for yourself out of proportion, covering your ears, closing your eyes and shouting.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  We won't compromise. The alternative is cops get the fuck out there and do real police work instead of co-opting our computers into their total surveillance network. I literally don't care that it makes their job harder. It should be as hard as possible.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

viscousviolin 3y ago

Thirty days of preventive detention is outrageous. Way to go Bavaria.

throwaway290 3y ago

Then go ahead and suggest any credible way to combat the modern epidemic of child abuse instead of being like the rest of the thread making excuses for it. Your vocal sheltered armchair maximalism on this topic is not a moral option if you agree to equivalent compromises in all other areas of your life. Either suggest an alternative measure in this case, or show an example and fight against those other compromises (that limit your freedom and privacy) first. After all, many of them only concern yourself and your family rather than countless innocent victims who cannot stand up for themselves. If techies don't suggest any good alternative measure to prevent abuse then someone else will do it in a worse way and then welcome to panopticon. There's no black and white where tech touches human factor so learn to compromise.

defrost 3y ago
> the modern epidemic of child abuse How is there a modern epidemic of child abuse? It's always lurked in the shadows alongside, for example, marriages in 1655 to 14 year old brides ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Pepys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Pepys ). If anything the modern age can be characterised by shining a stronmger light on the subject rather than sweeping it under the carpet.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Bad example. 14 years is age of consent in some countries, it was acceptable age to marry in some US states until 2019 (still seems possible in Washington) and in many countries arranged marriage is not considered abuse today. The modern epidemic of abuse is a different beast. Never in the history it was possible to abuse a child, record the process or live broadcast it, and sell access to that to hundreds of people around the world. Technologies that enable this are only recently available (internet, e2e messaging and cryptocurrency). But even if we pretended it was the same in absolute numbers, that is irrelevant. Yes, things were bad 500 years ago. If people were getting massacred today, you can say that it's all the same as back then, we should not be concerned, it's simply shedding more light on the same old murder. (It's especially easy to dismiss it if you were in the industry that makes tools for it). Or you could call it out as violence, even if it is happening less than in the dark ages, and try to do something about it.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
The fact that you comment this emotionally loaded drivel illustrates perfectly why politicians and policy makers keep abusing "the children" to push through anti-democratic policies. It works great to convince short-sighted fools. If Democracy falls (which this would result in), everyone will be abused, including children. You can't solve a problem by making a worse problem. You may want to open a history book and look at what happens to a society when it becomes a panopticon of total surveillance.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  You haven't addressed the facts. A significant problem exists, measures will be taken, compromises will happen. You can choose what they will be or you can refuse and someone will choose it for you. None of the other compromises of freedom (gun controls, cash controls, security checks) have led to a fall of democracy. In fact, they are requisite for democracies to thrive. You are blowing a minor inconvenience for yourself out of proportion, covering your ears, closing your eyes and shouting.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
We won't compromise. The alternative is cops get the fuck out there and do real police work instead of co-opting our computers into their total surveillance network. I literally don't care that it makes their job harder. It should be as hard as possible.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]