4 ms·

Encryption aids everybody's privacy, in the same way that roads aid predators to steal away with your children, and food aids predators by giving them nourishme

Encryption aids everybody's privacy, in the same way that roads aid predators to steal away with your children, and food aids predators by giving them nourishment. Ergo we need to ban encryption, ban roads and ban food. Anyone who doesn't want to ban food (and let me snoop on all their messages) is an evil predator - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYZo5yRVNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYZo5yRVNk Anything in the same sentence as "aids predators" throws context out the window and marks it as a vile and awful thing to anyone listening. Don't use that language, and don't let someone lead you by the nose into using that language. Instead, talk about how end-to-end-encryption improves the safety of all users, including children, because it gives them control over who sees their messages, and shields them from criminals who would gladly snoop and steal their personal data. Banning or breaking encryption will not make children safer. What will make them safer is parents supervising their young children's internet usage, and teaching them how to protect themselves online when they're older - how they should avoid giving out personal information (e.g. to Facebook or Instagram...), how to lock down access so only their verified friends can talk to them, etc.

rubberband 3y ago
I've been having a difficult time explaining why E2E encryption is, well, almost a moral imperative... Your metaphors, etc.., have made it easier. TYVM <3
hackerlight 3y ago
Everything is a double edged sword. Pointing that out isn't arguing in good faith. The question is the ratio of good to bad. Food and roads have an overwhelmingly positive good to bad ratio. Detractors are arguing that encryption on social media platforms have a worse ratio than food and roads. See, this is why I hate metaphors. It allows you to completely bypass the argument being made by comparing apples and oranges. Muddying the waters of the discussion with this rhetorical sleight of hand. Address the actual argument.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Everything is a double edged sword. Pointing that out isn't arguing in good faith. The GP did much more than just point that out. The GP gave arguments for how encryption helps keep children safer, rather than detracts from that. > The question is the ratio of good to bad. But that is not something that can be judged in a vacuum, or by a single authority. Everyone's circumstances are different, and any policy dictated from the top down is going to do the wrong thing for a non-trivial number of people. That is why freedom is a better option: give people the tools they need to make their own individual decisions. That applies to people protecting their children as much as anything else. > Detractors are arguing that encryption on social media platforms have a worse ratio than food and roads. No, they're arguing that encryption in general is just bad. They're not recognizing any benefits to encryption (such as the ones the GP described).
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    The people who are closest to the problem of children’s safety online come to a different assessment as to whether the larger risk is predators or hackers stealing… their identities? Their credit card numbers? Just generically “reading their messages?” And no, “they” aren’t arguing encryption in general is just bad. For example, I specifically mentioned that that’s not the case. Battling the strawman is your own rhetorical choice.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > The people who are closest to the problem of children’s safety online come to a different assessment as to whether the larger risk is predators or hackers stealing… their identities? The people who are closest to the problem are the children's parents. Are you saying they would rather not have encryption? The people who are against encryption, from what I can see, are not parents. They are businesses who don't want to have their access to data curtailed, and politicians who favor those businesses. I have not seen any real arguments against encryption from them, just FUD about "protect the children!".
      - ethanbond 3y ago
init2null 3y ago
I'd find it interesting to ask the opponents of E2E encryption what their feelings are on cash. Cash is also an untraceable form of interaction. Yes, cash is a medium of exchange for drugs and sex crimes, but it is also a bulwark against overreaching local and federal governments. How much personal choice and freedom should we give up?

rubberband 3y ago

I've been having a difficult time explaining why E2E encryption is, well, almost a moral imperative... Your metaphors, etc.., have made it easier. TYVM <3

hackerlight 3y ago

Everything is a double edged sword. Pointing that out isn't arguing in good faith. The question is the ratio of good to bad. Food and roads have an overwhelmingly positive good to bad ratio. Detractors are arguing that encryption on social media platforms have a worse ratio than food and roads. See, this is why I hate metaphors. It allows you to completely bypass the argument being made by comparing apples and oranges. Muddying the waters of the discussion with this rhetorical sleight of hand. Address the actual argument.

pdonis 3y ago
> Everything is a double edged sword. Pointing that out isn't arguing in good faith. The GP did much more than just point that out. The GP gave arguments for how encryption helps keep children safer, rather than detracts from that. > The question is the ratio of good to bad. But that is not something that can be judged in a vacuum, or by a single authority. Everyone's circumstances are different, and any policy dictated from the top down is going to do the wrong thing for a non-trivial number of people. That is why freedom is a better option: give people the tools they need to make their own individual decisions. That applies to people protecting their children as much as anything else. > Detractors are arguing that encryption on social media platforms have a worse ratio than food and roads. No, they're arguing that encryption in general is just bad. They're not recognizing any benefits to encryption (such as the ones the GP described).
- ethanbond 3y ago
  The people who are closest to the problem of children’s safety online come to a different assessment as to whether the larger risk is predators or hackers stealing… their identities? Their credit card numbers? Just generically “reading their messages?” And no, “they” aren’t arguing encryption in general is just bad. For example, I specifically mentioned that that’s not the case. Battling the strawman is your own rhetorical choice.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > The people who are closest to the problem of children’s safety online come to a different assessment as to whether the larger risk is predators or hackers stealing… their identities? The people who are closest to the problem are the children's parents. Are you saying they would rather not have encryption? The people who are against encryption, from what I can see, are not parents. They are businesses who don't want to have their access to data curtailed, and politicians who favor those businesses. I have not seen any real arguments against encryption from them, just FUD about "protect the children!".
    - ethanbond 3y ago

init2null 3y ago

I'd find it interesting to ask the opponents of E2E encryption what their feelings are on cash. Cash is also an untraceable form of interaction. Yes, cash is a medium of exchange for drugs and sex crimes, but it is also a bulwark against overreaching local and federal governments. How much personal choice and freedom should we give up?