3 ms·

I would assume those users were somehow highly motivated to use the app. "In this gang we only use An0m, install it if you wanna deal our drugs". I doubt any of

I would assume those users were somehow highly motivated to use the app. "In this gang we only use An0m, install it if you wanna deal our drugs". I doubt any of my non-techie friends (or even my parents) would side load an app if it was required to text me. WhatsApp has 2 billion users, Signal 40 million and An0m had 12k. Legislation like this will make E2EE communications unavailable to everyone but the most motivated techies and criminals.

palata 2y ago
> but the most motivated techies and criminals I don't think you need to be "the most motivated techie/criminal" to install an app. If you go on an illegal forum to access illegal content, most likely you are ready to install such an app. Meaning that "this law targets child pornography" makes no sense. But again, I think we all agree here. You just seem to keep repeating that legislation like this is dangerous (but we already all agree)!
- filleokus 2y ago
  If the app is not available in the regular app stores and requires side loading, (or possibly rooting) the threshold is quite high. > You just seem to keep repeating that legislation like this is dangerous And you keep repeating that it's a problem for the legislators that E2EE technology exists, when it's not. If a person doesn't think this is ethically problematic, even only 10 caught sex offenders every year would be consider a win. Whether there are ways to circumvent the law or not (hint: there are always ways) is irrelevant. > Meaning that "this law targets child pornography" makes no sense It makes total sense! I can almost guarantee that there would be more than 0 child sexual abusers who will use WhatsApp post this law, and will be caught. The aim of this law is to limit the spread of CSAM, and if more than 0 people are caught then the legislators will have succeeded (to some extent). Then when ChatControl 3.0 comes, targeting terrorists and organised crime within the same framework, again more than 0 will probably be caught. With ChatControl 15.0 worthless discussions online about legislation will be reported to employers and I will be caught ;-). Therefore, as I wrote in my original post, we need to explain WHY this is dangerous and not worth it. The fact that "E2EE exists and you can't catch all bad guys" is a very weak argument.
  - palata 2y ago
    Again, I agree with all that. I just feel like you complain about the fact that I split my argument in 3 points and would rather have it stand on one point :-). > we need to explain WHY this is dangerous and not worth it Yes. But if you only tell them that "making E2EE illegal to everybody is dangerous", they will kindly tell you "sure, but we are not talking about that: we are talking about a miracle privacy-preserving sniffer that only the good guys can have". They need to understand that this miracle they want does not exist, too!
    - filleokus 2y ago
      > They need to understand that this miracle they want does not exist, too! > I just feel like you complain about the fact that I split my argument in 3 points and would rather have it stand on one point :-). Which is your point 2). :-) As succinctly as I can: I think my argument now is that 1), redefined by you (or reunderstood by me) during our conversations is not worth making. Initially in my original post I interpreted 1) to mean that "since E2EE is used by 80+% of people today, it can't be made illegal" which I argued against (because I think this is false). Then you expanded upon it / I understood better to be "the technology exists, it can't be made to disappear", which I agree with - but think is a meaningless or naive way to look at legislation. Australia e.g famously enforced strict gun laws in the late 90's, telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything. I think a reason why I felt the need to argue about this is that I think a lot of techies / HN people have a very black-and-white view on the legislative process, "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw". Not saying you fall into this category though!
      - palata 2y ago
        Got it, now I understand. I agree that it is trivial, but I don't think it is meaningless. > telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything I disagree: if the legislators vote those laws and then tell the police and the military that criminals will never have guns again, then I think it would be worth letting them know that guns will still exist. Again: trivial, but not meaningless. > "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw" Right, I understand your point here, and that's not what I meant. I just meant that some politicians sound like they believe that people have to go to a specialized store and present an ID to get access to E2EE. And with this vision of the world, I understand that they may consider the benefits of "enforcing strict E2EE laws". But that's not how it works (and in that sense it's pretty different from guns), and they need to understand it.

palata 2y ago

> but the most motivated techies and criminals I don't think you need to be "the most motivated techie/criminal" to install an app. If you go on an illegal forum to access illegal content, most likely you are ready to install such an app. Meaning that "this law targets child pornography" makes no sense. But again, I think we all agree here. You just seem to keep repeating that legislation like this is dangerous (but we already all agree)!

filleokus 2y ago
If the app is not available in the regular app stores and requires side loading, (or possibly rooting) the threshold is quite high. > You just seem to keep repeating that legislation like this is dangerous And you keep repeating that it's a problem for the legislators that E2EE technology exists, when it's not. If a person doesn't think this is ethically problematic, even only 10 caught sex offenders every year would be consider a win. Whether there are ways to circumvent the law or not (hint: there are always ways) is irrelevant. > Meaning that "this law targets child pornography" makes no sense It makes total sense! I can almost guarantee that there would be more than 0 child sexual abusers who will use WhatsApp post this law, and will be caught. The aim of this law is to limit the spread of CSAM, and if more than 0 people are caught then the legislators will have succeeded (to some extent). Then when ChatControl 3.0 comes, targeting terrorists and organised crime within the same framework, again more than 0 will probably be caught. With ChatControl 15.0 worthless discussions online about legislation will be reported to employers and I will be caught ;-). Therefore, as I wrote in my original post, we need to explain WHY this is dangerous and not worth it. The fact that "E2EE exists and you can't catch all bad guys" is a very weak argument.
- palata 2y ago
  Again, I agree with all that. I just feel like you complain about the fact that I split my argument in 3 points and would rather have it stand on one point :-). > we need to explain WHY this is dangerous and not worth it Yes. But if you only tell them that "making E2EE illegal to everybody is dangerous", they will kindly tell you "sure, but we are not talking about that: we are talking about a miracle privacy-preserving sniffer that only the good guys can have". They need to understand that this miracle they want does not exist, too!
  - filleokus 2y ago
    > They need to understand that this miracle they want does not exist, too! > I just feel like you complain about the fact that I split my argument in 3 points and would rather have it stand on one point :-). Which is your point 2). :-) As succinctly as I can: I think my argument now is that 1), redefined by you (or reunderstood by me) during our conversations is not worth making. Initially in my original post I interpreted 1) to mean that "since E2EE is used by 80+% of people today, it can't be made illegal" which I argued against (because I think this is false). Then you expanded upon it / I understood better to be "the technology exists, it can't be made to disappear", which I agree with - but think is a meaningless or naive way to look at legislation. Australia e.g famously enforced strict gun laws in the late 90's, telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything. I think a reason why I felt the need to argue about this is that I think a lot of techies / HN people have a very black-and-white view on the legislative process, "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw". Not saying you fall into this category though!
    - palata 2y ago
      Got it, now I understand. I agree that it is trivial, but I don't think it is meaningless. > telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything I disagree: if the legislators vote those laws and then tell the police and the military that criminals will never have guns again, then I think it would be worth letting them know that guns will still exist. Again: trivial, but not meaningless. > "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw" Right, I understand your point here, and that's not what I meant. I just meant that some politicians sound like they believe that people have to go to a specialized store and present an ID to get access to E2EE. And with this vision of the world, I understand that they may consider the benefits of "enforcing strict E2EE laws". But that's not how it works (and in that sense it's pretty different from guns), and they need to understand it.