10 ms·
TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
- maest 8mo agoDo you feel safer knowing DMs are not encrypted?
- sethops1 8mo agoNobody should feel safe using the TikTok client, period.
- tartoran 8mo agoNeither Instagram/Facebook's Messenger/WhatsApp.
- tamimio 8mo agoAnd signal
- derwiki 8mo agoWhat do you use for messaging?
- modernpacifist 8mo agoObviously carrier pigeons carrying messages encrypted with post-quantum ciphers where keys have been sent ahead of time using USPS because no one would be so rude as to read someone elses mail.
- tamimio 8mo agoI have been using simpleX for some time now.
- gzread 8mo agoAre you aware of the creator's political beliefs and the E2EE leak baked into the app?
- fsflover 8mo agoMatrix.
- mullingitover 8mo agoNot just the TikTok client, anything made by Oracle is risky.
- stephbook 8mo agoDo you take "yes" for an answer? It really depends on whether you think your government is more dangerous than, say, suicide trends, grooming, scamming. I know the answer is pretty easy for US citizens to answer right now.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- sheept 8mo agoI feel like this makes sense for a platform that targets teens. Plus, I wouldn't trust TikTok to implement E2E encryption properly—who knows what they've snuck into their client.
- somenameforme 8mo agoI think it's very safe to assume that no major US based platform has 'real' E2E encryption. They're almost certainly all a part of PRISM by now, and it'd contradict their obligations to enable government surveillance. So the only thing that's different is not lying about it. Though I expect the other platforms are, like when denying they were part of PRISM, telling half truths and just being intentionally misleading. 'We provide complete E2E encryption [using deterministically generated keys which can be recreated on demand].'
- paulryanrogers 8mo agoSignal is open source
- Barbing 8mo agoSnowden endorsed last I heard? He doesn’t email of course.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- ranyume 8mo agoWhat kind of application is not targeted at both teens and adults? Youtube, twitter, bluesky, whatsapp? Every app with a social aspect will be used by teens. And no, tiktok is not "only for teens" or "specially targeted at teens", nowadays everyone uses it and creates content on it.
- RajT88 8mo ago
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- ronsor 8mo agoWhy would you use TikTok for private communications anyway? It's mostly a public short video sharing platform.
- adventured 8mo agoYou say that like the typical 18 year old has any idea what they're doing when it comes to proper encryption and communication safety. That is never going to be the case. It's a communication channel attached to the most popular social network for young people. Obviously they're going to use it a lot. They use it for the extreme convenience.
- g947o 8mo agoSays someone who has never sent a message to a friend over DM on TikTok.
- knallfrosch 8mo agoExactly.
- Barbing 8mo agoHopefully
- navigate8310 8mo agoThankfully
- halapro 8mo ago
- Bud 8mo agoBBC calling encryption "controversial privacy tech" is deeply disappointing and dangerous.
- ggm 8mo agoIt is controversial.. amongst people who have concerns about private communications and society, from a regulatory and governance perspective. It's uncontroversial amongst people who value their privacy. The tension between the two camps (there are obviously nuances and this is a false dichotomy) is at a current peak. It's an ongoing controversy. It's a matter of public debate. You might have liked it better if the angle had been "...which the government, controversially, wants to clamp down on" or something.
- unethical_ban 8mo agoThe UK government seems a lot more willing to embrace the panopticon in the name of protecting people from terrorists, child sex traffickers, human rights activists, Catholics, jaywalkers, you name it.
- 1shooner 8mo agoI wondered how it could be considered 'controversial', but they do quote at least a couple groups speaking against it. The NSPCC for instance, who incidentally also warned parents about a Harry Potter video game because their children might want to learn more about the game: >“Parents should also be aware that players may want to find out more about the game using other platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, Reddit and Discord, where other game fans can discuss strategies and experiences.
- stinkbeetle 8mo agoCalling something controversial is a favorite propaganda technique employed by "news" outlets. It's another form of selective reporting and framing. It carries negative connotations, and has really no objective standard by which it can be wrong since you'll always find somebody against any issue. After you notice it, you'll notice it everywhere.
- 8mo ago
- ranyume 8mo agoThis might be off-topic but on-topic about child safety... but I'm surprised people are being myopic about age verification. Age verification should be banned, but people ignore that nowadays most widely used online services already ask for your age and act accordingly: twitter, youtube, google in general, any online marketplace. They already got so much data on their users and optimize their algorithms for those groups in an opaque way. So yeah, age verification should be taken down, as well as the datamining these companies do and the opaque tunning of their algorithms. It baffles me: people are concerned about their children's DMs but are not concerned about what companies serves them and what they do with their data.
- LoganDark 8mo agoMonitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps. If a parent wants to install a keylogger or screen recorder on their child's PC, that's their decision. But Google should not be able to. Neither should... literally anyone else except maybe an employer on a work-provided device.
- duped 8mo agoParents shouldn't give their child access to a device that allows DMs. That said, these platforms are making it impossible for parents to monitor anything. They're literally designed to profit off addiction in children.
- greygoo222 8mo agoWhy? Plenty of children benefit from talking to other people. Some children need careful monitoring, and some children shouldn't be allowed to use DMs, but it's not universal and should be up to the parents.
- iso1631 8mo agoControl over who they can talk to (if needed), certainly monitoring of both who they talk to and in many situations what the contents are At some point between the age of 0 and 18 the child has to be fully ready for an independent world. A cliff edge is a terrible idea, allowing 3 year olds unmonitored uncontrolled conversations with strangers is a terrible idea, but not allowing 15 year olds to talk to their friends is a terrible idea.
- xeckr 8mo agoBrilliant. They're repackaging the argument governments have long made about E2EE being dangerous to children.
- debazel 8mo agoChildren are just too effect of a tool when building a surveillance state. We should have banned children from owning open computers a long time ago just like we do with Alcohol, Driving licenses, etc. Instead children would own special devices that are locked down and tagged with a "underage" flag when interacting with online services, while adults could continue as normal. We already heavily restrict the freedom of children so there is plenty of precedent for this. Optionally we could provide service points to unlock devices when they turn 18 to avoid E-waste as well. This way it's the point of sale where you provide your ID, instead of attaching it to the hardware itself and sending it out to every single SaaS on the planet to do what they wish.
- tayo42 8mo agoI can't tell if this is sarcasm or not
- travisgriggs 8mo agoHyperbole of some sort. I think it works on both the positive and negative side of the axis too.
- nandomrumber 8mo agoI’ll have a packet of cigarettes, a fifth of vodka, and an unrestricted personal electro device. ID please. Seems entirely reasonable. Possibility entirely ineffective, but then again I don’t often see children walking around with bottle a of booze.
- pants2 8mo agoTikTok has a drug-like effect on the brain. Multiple studies show a clear link between excessive TikTok engagement and increased levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. Maybe it is time we regulate it like a drug?
- Tyrubias 8mo agoTikTok’s stance against end-to-end encryption is unsurprising but still concerning. TikTok is a source of information on many topics, such as the genocide in Gaza, which traditional media underreport and many governments try to suppress. The network effect of big social media platforms means many people will likely talk about these topics in TikTok DMs. No matter what legal controls TikTok claims to enforce, there is no substitute for technological barriers for preventing invasions of privacy and government overreach. This is yet another example where corporations and governments sacrifice people’s autonomy and privacy in the name of security.
- spaqin 8mo agoIt's a pretty terrifying world we live in now, where an unencrypted addictive short-form video platform is considered a source of information more than news agencies or even community-managed forums.
- consp 8mo agoFor older generations Facebook has the same problem. "On Facebook it said [propaganda item bla bla]" is something I hear with those generations.
- bbshfishe 8mo ago[dead]
- 9864247888754 8mo agoOf course you are the target audience for disinformation spread via this propaganda platform.
- tw04 8mo agoReminder, Larry “citizens shouldn’t get any privacy” Ellison now owns tik tok. If you’re still using it or have friends and family using it you should stop immediately. It WILL eventually be used against you if this regime gets its way. https://digitaldemocracynow.org/2025/03/22/the-troubling-implications-of-larry-ellisons-vision-for-ai-and-social-control/ https://digitaldemocracynow.org/2025/03/22/the-troubling-imp...
- dylan604 8mo agoAs if. If people haven't stopped using TikTok with all of the other reasons for stopping, then because Ellison is damn sure not going to move the needle.
- aprilthird2021 8mo agoWhat were the other reasons for stopping?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- chinathrow 8mo agoCurbing addiction?
- bas 8mo agoFascinating. What a time to be alive.
- burnt-resistor 8mo agoIt's the Max app for Americans, now with 900% more US and IL government spying.
- rdiddly 8mo ago"The situation is made more complex because TikTok has long faced accusations that ties to the Chinese state may put users' data at risk." And yet, it's even more complex than that, since it's now owned by cronies of the current US President. I've never had a TikTok account, but conceptually I was mostly pretty okay with being spied-upon by China. I'm never going to China.
- andrewinardeer 8mo ago> "I'm never going to China." Voluntarily.
- fragmede 8mo agoYes. China gives a shit that user rdiddly, at 36 minutes before 00:55 UTC on March 4, 2026, said that China is spyihg to the point that they are going to be abducted for it.
- BLKNSLVR 8mo ago> I'm never going to China. China will come to us. Or should that be: China will come to the US.
- pothamk 8mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- computerex 8mo agoTikTok is a front for government surveillance, so it's not really surprising that this is their position.
- bbshfishe 8mo ago[dead]
- rustyhancock 8mo agoNow it's a franchise too! Once it gets big enough in your location you buy it for that sweet sweet intel.
- trashb 8mo agoThe government are able to access your conversations, data and connections with e2ee in place already. I don't see how not having e2ee would have an effect on that ability in any way.
- Cider9986 8mo agoPlease provide proof for these claims.
- dlev_pika 8mo agoL337 Hax0rs, of course
- theideaofcoffee 8mo agoYou actually choose to believe that these trillion dollar tech monsters run by some of the most despicable people on the planet are being forthright in that they have no ability to do this on behalf of some government request? For something that isn't open source and can't be audited, and can be changed at the next upgrade without any oversight? I find it so much more unlikely that they can't, and that informs my normie use, mostly.
- trashb 8mo agoMyth: End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is the only way to ensure robust cybersecurity. Reality: E2EE carries its own risks and vulnerabilities. No single, standalone method achieves bulletproof cybersecurity. Robust cybersecurity requires layering multiple, diligently managed security measures and best practices. Malevolent actors can exploit E2E encryption to avoid critical data security scanning, to allow malware inside a network or onto a device, and to evade law enforcement. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/lawful-access/lawful-access-myths-vs-reality https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/lawful-access/lawful-...
- blackqueeriroh 8mo agoThere is no way to do E2EE on a traditional social media platform with user-generated content and comply with existing US law. You can’t moderate an E2EE platform.
- tbrockman 8mo agoWhat law do you believe supports your perspective?
- rockskon 8mo agoAside from the fact that you can get Metadata and that some communication frequently happens outside of E2EE - what US law do you believe mandates moderation? I'm curious.
- lurk2 8mo agoAll of Meta’s major properties (Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp) support E2EE messaging.
- ntoskrnl_exe 8mo agoPretty sure that for Meta the impossibility to moderate E2EE was the point. It’s cheaper to shrug than pay content moderators.
- croes 8mo ago> Grooming and harassment risks are very real in DMs [direct messages] so TikTok now can credibly argue that it's prioritising 'proactive safety' over 'privacy absolutism' which is a pretty powerful soundbite Means they read every message
- kotaKat 8mo agoLarry needs his kids' menu.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- matesz 8mo agoFun fact - there is a big correlation between World Wars and compulsory education. Of course governments and big corporations "care" about children. Of course!
- Madmallard 8mo agoclown emoji
- dakolli 8mo ago[flagged]
- matricaria 8mo agoSince when is E2EE controversial? Not using E2EE should be controversial.
- kristianc 8mo agoIt's never been controversial, it's the BBC. doing it's usual job of laundering the arguments the establishment want you to hear for domestic consumption.
- mysterium 8mo agoThe thing is, it _is_ controversial. At least amongst the general public. Obviously not in somewhere like Hacker News where there’s a clear consensus, but if you asked a random sample of the UK population “should law enforcement be allowed to compel tech companies to hand over all DMs of confirmed paedophiles?”, I’d bet very good money the majority would say “yes”. The notion that “Big Tech” can absolve themselves of the responsibility to help law enforcement find child abusers by saying “it’s all encrypted, not my problem”, does not sit well with a large sector of the population. Whether it’s good or bad is an ultimately political question, and both sides of the debate tend to talk past each other on this topic, but it’s undeniably a controversial point within the broader population.
- kristianc 8mo agoSure, but it comes down to framing. If you asked 'Would you support weakening encryption in messaging apps if it helped catch some criminals, even though it could make it easier for hackers to read your messages and steal your passwords, bank details, or personal photos?' I'd bet a large proportion of the general population would say no. But that side never gets explored, or there's an assumption that there's some way of only letting the good guys access the information.
- gzread 8mo agoWe are technologists here. There is no technology that can determine if somebody is a pedophile. We can't make a system that exposes the data of pedophiles but is secure for everyone else. We think it has to be all or nothing. But other people are not technologists. Lawyers think the law is robust enough to determine if someone is a pedophile and only issue warrants for pedophile's data and simultaneously punish anyone who leaks the data of non-pedophiles. Most of the public also believe the police and the law can do that. When the law is set up to do that, always gets abused eventually, after a time of not getting abused. The public gets outraged and the responsible person gets a slap on the wrist, and the abuse is normalized. In other words, lawyers are wrong and it doesn't work - by our standards. That doesn't stop them thinking it does. Our definition of "you can't do that" is "it's impossible to do that." Their definition of "you can't do that" is "you can do that, but if the police find out, you will go to jail."
- ThoAppelsin 8mo agoDMs are akin to private conversations in real life. Thus, every DM feature should entail E2EE. It’s ok for a platform to not feature private conversations. They should just have no DM feature at all, then; make all messages publicly visible. Private conversations are indeed not for all ages. Parents should be able to grant access to that on individual basis.
- Ekaros 8mo agoYou could have reasonable legal system where privacy is guaranteed. But you do not need end to end encryption for that to be thing. It really is orthogonal issue.
- bdamm 8mo agoAh, but you see, soon TikTok will allow parents to spy on their children's DMs, and parents will love this.
- gzread 8mo agoIsn't that something we asked for? We keep asking for parents to parent their children instead of getting age verification laws, and that is what that looks like.
- theblazehen 8mo agoSure, however kids these days often can't socialize irl - should kids be isolated from friends because they're unable to have any private conversations at all? During times in which I was unable to socialize irl (eg school holidays), and unable to talk to my friends online, I can confirm that the isolation was not good for my mental health.
- Galanwe 8mo agoI fail to see the link between private conversations/DM and E2EE. To quote a comment I made some time ago: - You can call your service e2e encrypted even if every client has the same key bundled into the binary, and rotate it from time to time when it's reversed. - You can call your service e2e encrypted even if you have a server that stores and pushes client keys. That is how you could access your message history on multiple devices. - You can call your service e2e encrypted and just retrieve or push client keys at will whenever you get a government request. E2EE only prevents naive middlemen from reading your messages.
- deafpolygon 8mo agowhy are we still wringing our hands around this? we’ve already determined that tiktok is bad for our health. because tiktok is addicting, and they know it…
- 0xbrayo 8mo agounrelated but I'm always surprised by the number of people who don't know that instagram dms are not encrypted by default.
- 9864247888754 8mo agoAnd their target audience won't question it.
- hexage1814 8mo agoIt doesn't matter. Web-based cryptography is always snake oil https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.devever.net/~hl/webcrypto https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.devever.net/~hl/webc...
- tuxracer 8mo agoIt's a native app what are you talking about
- ftigis 8mo ago> It is worth noting that this law also applies to non-web applications where the service provider supposedly being secured against is also the client software distributor; thus, the “end-to-end encryption” offered by Whatsapp and Signal, amongst other proprietary services, is equally bogus. (Both Whatsapp and Signal ban use of third party clients, and enforce this policy.)
- bougainvilley 8mo agothe specificity of between web apps that is highlighted by the article is that you receive a bundled code of software every time you open or use the app, as opposed to say, the operating system or desktop apps, which are less frequently updated. (Native) mobile apps are like web apps in that they release updates almost every day.
- szmarczak 8mo ago> if the server operator was malicious, they could just push different client-side JavaScript Same as with OS updates, browser updates, dependencies used by the OS, dependencies used by the browser. Also you can run malicious software such as keyloggers and you're compromised. That argument doesn't mean E2E (even web based) is snake oil. Browsers just give you more points of failure.
- mr_mitm 8mo agoThe difference is: in web based cryptography, you get the cipher text and the code to decrypt it from the same source. Hijacking OS updates is arguably much harder than hijacking one particular web server, and there is pretty much no effective defense against malicious OS updates.
- hd4 8mo agoI hate the BBC so much - "controversial privacy tech" "E2EE ... the best way to protect conversations from .. even repressive authorities" "End-to-end encryption has been criticised by governments, police forces" They're saying this at the same time as they're clutching pearls over Iran's repression of protestors. Typical of the ethical consistency I would expect from them.
- krickelkrackel 8mo agoJust like door locks are making the world less free!
- camillomiller 8mo agoDoublespeak. War is peace.
- gnarlouse 8mo agoMaybe just don't use TikTok. Shocking that adults use a platform for children.
- dev_l1x_be 8mo agoI take privacy suggestions from social media companies on a daily basis.
- lwansbrough 8mo agoThe Chinese spyware app won’t do E2EE? I can’t believe what I’m reading.
- gorgoiler 8mo agoI don’t really understand how we are supposed to believe in e2ee in closed proprietary apps. Even if some trusted auditor confirms they have plumbed in libsignal correctly, we have no way of knowing that their rendering code is free of content scanning hooks. We know the technology exists. Apple had it all polished and ready to go for image scanning. I suppose the only thing in which we can place our faith is that it would be such an enormous scandal to be caught in the act that WhatsApp et al daren’t even try it. (There is something to be said for e2ee: it protects you against an attack on Meta’s servers. Anyone who gets a shell will have nothing more than random data. Anyone who finds a hard drive in the data centre dumpster will have nothing more than a paperweight.)
- dijit 8mo agoI've been making this argument for a long time, and it's never popular. People want to believe in E2EE, it's almost like religion at this point. Protecting people is synonymous with E2EE, even if you cant verify it, and it can be potentially broken. I was even more controversial and singled out Signal as an example: https://blog.dijit.sh/i-don-t-trust-signal/ https://blog.dijit.sh/i-don-t-trust-signal/
- theideaofcoffee 8mo agoSame, my default MO is assuming 'e2ee' is broken and unsafe by default. Anything that I truly don't want sent over the wire would be in person, in the dark, in a root cellar, underwater. Not that I've ever been in the position to relay juicy info like that. Hyperbole I know, but my trust begins at zero.
- autoexec 8mo agoThere are good reasons to not trust signal. The very first line of their privacy & terms page says "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information" but then they started collecting and permanently storing sensitive user data in the cloud and never updated that page. Much more recently they started collected and storing message content in the cloud for some users, but they still refuse to update that page. I'm pretty sure it's big fat dead canary warning users away from Signal. Any service that markets itself to whistleblowers and activists then also outright lies to them about the risks they take when using it can't be trusted for anything.
- edarchis 8mo ago> But critics have said E2EE makes it harder to stop harmful content spreading online, because it means tech firms and law enforcement have no way of viewing any material sent in direct messages. Like they give a damn. I report accounts that explicitly sell fake credit cards, citing laws that make it illegal and 95% of the time "we checked and there is no violation here, we know that you're not happy but don't give a crap". So the argument of security is utter bullshit and they just want to snoop.
- Traster 8mo agoI think this is... fine? Am I just totally naive. I think it's fine to say "You don't really have privacy on this app" - as long as there are relatively good options of apps that do have privacy (and I think there are). TikTok is really a public by default type of social media, there's not much idea of mutual following or closed groups. So sure, you don't have privacy on tiktok, if you want it you can move to snapchat or signal or whatever platform of your choice. Like, it's literally a platform that was run under the watchful eye of the CCP, and now the US version is some kleptocratic nightmare, so I just don't see the point in expecting some sort of principled stance out of them. In some ways I think it's worse for places like Facebook to "care about privacy" and use E2EE but then massively under-resource policing of CSAM on their platform. If you're going to embrace 'privacy' I do think it's on you to also then put additional resources into tackling the downsides of that.
- londons_explore 8mo agoTiktok has private messaging, and it is used by hundreds of millions of people. IMO no consumer service should have private 1:1 messaging without e2e. Either only do public messaging (ie. Like a forum), or implement e2e.
- trashb 8mo agoIn my experience most forums have private messaging. Additionally I think it is fine to say "we don't support e2ee". I prefer honesty to a bad (leaky) e2ee implementation, at least the user can make an informed choice.
- Ekaros 8mo agoI agree. At least take of "Yes messages are stored on our servers" is honest. And if they are accessed by anything else than limited subpoena is policy or legal issue.
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago>In my experience most forums have private messaging. Yeah but it's kind of accepted that the forum owner could read it all if they so chose. Maybe this is a hold over from back in the old days when encryption was nowhere near default during which forums arose.
- _el1s7 8mo agoThat's good, people who need E2EE shouldn't use TikTok either way, there are plenty of other secure apps for that. TikTok is a social media app, and it gets heavily abused as it is.
- villgax 8mo agoThis according to many researchers is the best case study example for corporations gaslighting users into accepting surveillance by companies and governments alike.
- crest 8mo agoA Chinese company saying you don't need encryption. Why should anyone waste time debunking their bad faith "arguments"?
- swiftcoder 8mo ago> the controversial privacy feature used by nearly all its rivals "controversial" according to who? The NSA / GCHQ?
- a13o 8mo agoListed in the article are the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Internet Watch Foundation, which monitors and removes child sexual abuse material from the internet. The recent Meta lawsuits also mention opposition from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Meta's own executives: Monika Bickert (head of content policy) and Antigone Davis (global head of safety). Both executives mention the danger end-to-end encryption poses to children when attached to a social media graph. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warned-facebook-messenger-encryption-plan-was-so-irresponsible-2026-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warn...
- Ajedi32 8mo agoGood to see this called out. The HN echo chamber has this really terrible habit of attributing any disagreement with the prevailing opinion here to big, shadowy forces with evil motives (billionaires, corporations, three letter agencies, politicians, etc) instead of facing the reality that sometimes well meaning people just have different values and priorities than us. Very rarely does that narrative get challenged directly.
- swiftcoder 8mo ago> Both executives mention the danger end-to-end encryption poses to children when attached to a social media graph So the fact that we welded a messaging platform onto a global-child-discovery-service is bad? Sure. Not encrypting that messaging platform is sort of closing the barn door after the horse has gone walkabout
- oscaracso 8mo agoIt is a considerably larger threat for anonymous strangers to be able to establish private lines of communication with children than for them to know that Lisa Simpson (8) lives in Springfield and attends Springfield Elementary. In terms of discovery, most people are already aware that children can be found in school.
- Schlagbohrer 8mo agoThis BBC article is insanely written.
- blueTiger33 8mo agoso we need no encryption?...at the end of the day we have nothing to hide right CIA,FBI? :D
- hackersk 8mo ago[dead]
- iso1631 8mo agoThe actual headline is currently > TikTok won't protect DMs with controversial privacy tech, saying it would put users at risk Not sure if this was changed since first posting, I don't mind updates, but unless it'd redacting for legal purposes (which should then itself be clearly mentioned), the BBC should provide a public changelog like wikipedia
- bsza 8mo ago> We know just how risky end-to-end-encrypted platforms can be for children As opposed to doomscrolling and brainrot, which are not risky to expose children to at all. /s If TikTok cared about children in the slightest, they would not exist.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- knodi 8mo agoAnother step in towards the endgame, mass surveillance state.
- zthrowaway 8mo agoMaking users less safe from… letting us snoop on all your communications for “national security”.
- 1970-01-01 8mo agoI see it like this: Taking in the totality of the danger, they're right. If the source (social network) and the destination (child brain) cannot be treated as trustworthy, then you must control the content for overall safety. If you could trust either end, then you could dismiss the argument. But you cannot trust children to be cognizant of abuse, and you already know social media literally reinvented abusive behaviors for the 21st century. Do nothing and children will be harmed. Overreach by any amount and you have destroyed freedom. The only middle ground is weaker encrypted E2E comms. Something that creates a forcing function with very high cost (an electric bill or SaaS service) for the sniffer but can be broken with enough horsepower. Think about what millions of dollars per character would do. Good luck codifying that insane compromise into a law.
- animitronix 8mo agolol why are people still using this garbage?
- gradientsrneat 8mo agoA middle ground would be to implement E2EE but have messages signed (and ideally organized in a Merkel tree), so that if a DM is reported there's cryptographic proof that the accounts sent the messages.
- insane_dreamer 8mo agoI'll never let my kids have a TikTok account anyway (once they're adults they can have one of course if they want to).
- MetaWhirledPeas 8mo ago"makes users less safe" They don't believe that. It makes it more difficult to deal with governments, is all. Big Brother needs your messages from time to time, and TikTok is not willing to risk getting shut down to argue against that. We can't have pesky principles getting in the way of money.
- lucasfin000 8mo agoI dont think the argument is really about child safety. If it was tiktok would also be working on fixing their algorithm that can send minors toward harmful content, which is a far larger documented vector than encrypted DMs. This is about preserving access.
- quotemstr 8mo agoIt's one thing to make a policy decision I disagree with. It's another to lie, blatantly, to my face about it. But what do you expect from people who bought TikTok specifically so they could add censorship and lied about it being some kind of national security issue?
- cdrnsf 8mo agoTikTok and other social media apps' business models are antithetical to privacy.
- dlev_pika 8mo agoTheir whole model predicates on the lack of privacy, so it’s crazy to expect anything else.
- dlev_pika 8mo agolol It makes sense - they extract every possible bit of personal information from your device - why would they make you believe they care about your privacy? You want to communicate privately? TikTok is not the place, and that’s ok. shrugs
- zzo38computer 8mo agoIn my opinion, a separate software should be used for the end-to-end encryption than for the communication, although there are other things to do for security other than only programming the computer correctly (such as securely agreeing the keys and ciphers in person).
- maxdo 8mo agoPeople seriously discuss privacy in Chinese app . With all respect, their government will not allow you even a hint of privacy
- beaker52 8mo agoSomeone in the UK government is furiously writing this down.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo agoWhat unsafe things are users most likely to encounter?
- SuperSandro2000 8mo agohahaha, good one
- hoestomper 8mo ago[dead]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Jotalea 8mo agoI don't see the issue with this. tiktok DMs were made for sharing videos directly to someone, and reacting to those, not as a primary chatting method. if you think otherwise, I'd like you to explain why is the experience optimized for video sharing, yet the text messages are unoptimized.
- greatgib 8mo agoThey said "less safe" but they didn't say "less safe" for who. It is obviously less safe for dictatorial government and so they can't tolerate that...
- h4kunamata 8mo agoHonestly, if you are using any social media and expect to have privacy, you should be checked by a psychologist.
- chaz6 8mo agoI am happy with this. Users should be under no allusion that their messages are secret. It just gives a false sense of security. If you don't want people reading your messages you should be using one-time pads. Of course this cannot prevent discovery of your messaging network.
- derangedHorse 8mo agoMeh, I don’t care if they keep this product decision but I don’t like the unsupported assertion that enabling it would cause harm to the children on their platform. If it really is to help combat predators they should publish data on who they are able to help by having access to every conversation on the platform. Have they stopped a kidnapping? A battery? A murder? Maybe they helped a court case? If we can’t see how the public is benefiting from this, we’re left to assume it’s mostly in TikTok’s benefit. They could be using messaging data to blackmail politicians for all we know!
- lunias 8mo agoDo whatever you want with your app, but you should be punished if you lie. Saying E2E encryption makes users less safe is a lie.