3 ms·

So... end to end message encryption means meta can't see messages child molesters are sending to children.

by fragmede 8mo ago

lmm 8mo ago
As it should. If they can read those messages they can read anyone's messages.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
gostsamo 8mo ago
When you see traffic between 40 yo man and 12 yo girl which don't have any common social connections and the messages are initiated by the man, you don't have to crack e2e to suspect dickpicks.
- b112 8mo ago
  So you want the platform to be creepier and investigate connections more intensely? And you want to intercede on an arbitrary method you just made up, without examining all traffic first? I seem to recall someone taking pictures of their baby, naked, because it was sick, and emailing them to the doctor -- and having their Apple account terminated. Terminated, with the father being labeled a pedophile, and the police contacted (all automatically). Everyone was quite upset. Everyone felt it was too intrusive. Frankly, communication platforms have no business trying to police anything at all. I wouldn't want the phone company recording all my conversations, hunting for trigger words, and then contacting the police or cutting off my phone if I sad "bad word". Yet somehow it's OK to have this level of intrusion because.. um "computers". The state has no business listening in on private citizen's communication. Corporations have no business doing so. To protect the 12 year girl, something called "her parents" need to pay attention and watch what she does. That's their job. They're her guardian. Some random corporation has no business in that. Some random corporation has no business being an 'algorithmic parent', an automated machine with no appeal. Here's something I'd support -- a way for parents to prevent children from registering for accounts, and, to be able to examine children's accounts. But... then we get into ID verification. Of course, surely you support ID verification for platforms, because if you support platforms knowing the age of people (40 and 12, you listed), then you therefore must support a way to verify those ages.
  - gostsamo 8mo ago
    So nice of you to know what I want without me even implying it using examples that are contrary to the conversation making arguments that you've invented for purposes that only you can imagine. But just imagine that kids' accounts are coming with restrictions and privileges and when one account is marked as such, accounts marked as adult cannot initiate contact and the kids's data is automatically private, and those accounts cannot be comercialized under any shape or form.
    - b112 8mo ago
      So nice of you to know what I want without me even implying it Yet you did imply it, as I said, by mentioning the age of the persons involved. There is no accurate way to know age, without some form of identity or age verification. Presuming a child will have an account marked "child" is folly, for kids can just sign up without a parent's knowledge, creating a second account. If the goal is to actually protect and be a pseudo parent for the child, then actually ensuring that a child cannot have an adult account is part of that. My point is, TSA style "we're doing things which look secure, but are not helpful and only inconvenient" isn't going to help. It will only give the appearance, not the actualized result of security.
      - gostsamo 8mo ago
        No, the child can mark itself as a child. The implication is in your imagination. There are lots of children (even most) which do not feel the need to upage themselves on the internet, but where they get only the downsides of children accounts and get utilized by the platform.
        nomel 8mo ago
        > No, the child can mark itself as a child and, an adult can mark itself as a child.
  - bluegatty 8mo ago
    " And you want to intercede on an arbitrary method you just made up," No, they literally identified a plausibly sensible policy flag, not some arbitrary action. These flags are used in literally every system imaginable. They they don't conform to some hard criteria, to your criteria, or to some working or ideological group's criteria is a bit besides the point. Every system has these for good reason. We have laws and regulations for all sorts of things to help people - including children and parents - in a complex society. "The state has no business listening in on private citizen's communication." The absolutely do, depending on circumstances. While Facebook is not a place for state monitoring, it's definitely in the public interest if they flag something that is 'very bad' by some reasonable criteria, so that the state can then act if necessary. They do so within the boundaries of the law subject to judicial oversight. Facebook is a popular social network, a place that they want people to feel imminently safe. It's a Starbucks lounge without coffee - not a 'personal hyper protected zone'. Other places, such as Signal, Telegram etc. can have different levels of privacy aka e2e given the different offering and expectations of privacy. Facebook more or less wants to offer a relatively safe place where the kids can hang out, where they know crazy people are not going to attack their kinds. It's a community centre not a hacker zone. If we can get past that, then we can move onto basic issues of privacy, advertising etc. which are damaging to everyone, especially young people, for which Facebook has perverse incentives.
- vaylian 8mo ago
  > which don't have any common social connections How would you actually know this? Facebook is a surveillance company, but they are not omniscient.

So... end to end message encryption means meta can't see messages child molesters are sending to children.

lmm 8mo ago

As it should. If they can read those messages they can read anyone's messages.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

gostsamo 8mo ago

When you see traffic between 40 yo man and 12 yo girl which don't have any common social connections and the messages are initiated by the man, you don't have to crack e2e to suspect dickpicks.

b112 8mo ago
So you want the platform to be creepier and investigate connections more intensely? And you want to intercede on an arbitrary method you just made up, without examining all traffic first? I seem to recall someone taking pictures of their baby, naked, because it was sick, and emailing them to the doctor -- and having their Apple account terminated. Terminated, with the father being labeled a pedophile, and the police contacted (all automatically). Everyone was quite upset. Everyone felt it was too intrusive. Frankly, communication platforms have no business trying to police anything at all. I wouldn't want the phone company recording all my conversations, hunting for trigger words, and then contacting the police or cutting off my phone if I sad "bad word". Yet somehow it's OK to have this level of intrusion because.. um "computers". The state has no business listening in on private citizen's communication. Corporations have no business doing so. To protect the 12 year girl, something called "her parents" need to pay attention and watch what she does. That's their job. They're her guardian. Some random corporation has no business in that. Some random corporation has no business being an 'algorithmic parent', an automated machine with no appeal. Here's something I'd support -- a way for parents to prevent children from registering for accounts, and, to be able to examine children's accounts. But... then we get into ID verification. Of course, surely you support ID verification for platforms, because if you support platforms knowing the age of people (40 and 12, you listed), then you therefore must support a way to verify those ages.
- gostsamo 8mo ago
  So nice of you to know what I want without me even implying it using examples that are contrary to the conversation making arguments that you've invented for purposes that only you can imagine. But just imagine that kids' accounts are coming with restrictions and privileges and when one account is marked as such, accounts marked as adult cannot initiate contact and the kids's data is automatically private, and those accounts cannot be comercialized under any shape or form.
  - b112 8mo ago
    So nice of you to know what I want without me even implying it Yet you did imply it, as I said, by mentioning the age of the persons involved. There is no accurate way to know age, without some form of identity or age verification. Presuming a child will have an account marked "child" is folly, for kids can just sign up without a parent's knowledge, creating a second account. If the goal is to actually protect and be a pseudo parent for the child, then actually ensuring that a child cannot have an adult account is part of that. My point is, TSA style "we're doing things which look secure, but are not helpful and only inconvenient" isn't going to help. It will only give the appearance, not the actualized result of security.
    - gostsamo 8mo ago
      No, the child can mark itself as a child. The implication is in your imagination. There are lots of children (even most) which do not feel the need to upage themselves on the internet, but where they get only the downsides of children accounts and get utilized by the platform.
      - nomel 8mo ago
        > No, the child can mark itself as a child and, an adult can mark itself as a child.
- bluegatty 8mo ago
  " And you want to intercede on an arbitrary method you just made up," No, they literally identified a plausibly sensible policy flag, not some arbitrary action. These flags are used in literally every system imaginable. They they don't conform to some hard criteria, to your criteria, or to some working or ideological group's criteria is a bit besides the point. Every system has these for good reason. We have laws and regulations for all sorts of things to help people - including children and parents - in a complex society. "The state has no business listening in on private citizen's communication." The absolutely do, depending on circumstances. While Facebook is not a place for state monitoring, it's definitely in the public interest if they flag something that is 'very bad' by some reasonable criteria, so that the state can then act if necessary. They do so within the boundaries of the law subject to judicial oversight. Facebook is a popular social network, a place that they want people to feel imminently safe. It's a Starbucks lounge without coffee - not a 'personal hyper protected zone'. Other places, such as Signal, Telegram etc. can have different levels of privacy aka e2e given the different offering and expectations of privacy. Facebook more or less wants to offer a relatively safe place where the kids can hang out, where they know crazy people are not going to attack their kinds. It's a community centre not a hacker zone. If we can get past that, then we can move onto basic issues of privacy, advertising etc. which are damaging to everyone, especially young people, for which Facebook has perverse incentives.
vaylian 8mo ago
> which don't have any common social connections How would you actually know this? Facebook is a surveillance company, but they are not omniscient.