Privacy on the internet

[Pogue Mahone]

Listened to a Sam Harris podcast which brings this issue front and centre. He was talking to a journalist from the NYT who’s done some incredible work on an absolute EXPLOSION of child porn online (from 170,000 reported incidents in the US in 2007 to 17,000,000 in 2017) The journalist thinks the obsession with privacy is making far too easy to share child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online (that’s apparently a better phrase than “child pornography”). The tech companies aren’t doing enough to help law enforcement and Facebook’s plans to end to end encrypt Mesanger could have catastrophic consequences.

One of the journalist’s suggestions was that certain platforms should never be allowed to be fully encrypted. If you use Facebook messenger then you should expect your data to be trawled through by alogrithms designed to identify problematic material. The problem with Facebook is that predators can identify and target young kids and trick them into sharing inappropriate images, then blackmail them into even worse transgressions. Apparently this is a huge - and growing - problem. He says Facebook should tell everyone that if they want an encrypted chat to use their other platform, whatsapp. The benefit of whatsapp being it can’t be used to cold call strangers after viewing their online profiles.

Seems reasonable to me.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Listened to a Sam Harris podcast

This is the CAF - RIP

 

[Pogue Mahone]

This is the CAF - RIP

Ha! True. Given his libertarian stance on free speech I was expecting him to be a data privacy absolutist. Quite the opposite, as it turns out.

 

[ZIDANE]

Privacy is one of the biggest issue for these platforms from a commercial perspective.

The problem without encryption is how much we trust companies and governments when it comes to how they use that data. So far NSA, Google, Amazon, and Facebook have all proven to do something wrong.

There was a BBC story recently about another random app being inadvertently used for chats like this so I don’t think it’s limited to Facebook and as simple. They will use something else, Facebook isn’t even the big growing market for kids.

Heavy regulation of data may be an option as FB suggested but that comes with a load of other problems and where you draw the line e.g. porn, streaming, etc. Leading into things like net neutrality.

How much freedom should parents give their kids on the internet anyway?

https://about.fb.com/news/2019/03/four-ideas-regulate-internet/

 

[gormless]

Listened to a Sam Harris podcast which brings this issue front and centre. He was talking to a journalist from the NYT who’s done some incredible work on an absolute EXPLOSION of child porn online (from 170,000 reported incidents in the US in 2007 to 17,000,000 in 2017) The journalist thinks the obsession with privacy is making far too easy to share child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online (that’s apparently a better phrase than “child pornography”). The tech companies aren’t doing enough to help law enforcement and Facebook’s plans to end to end encrypt Mesanger could have catastrophic consequences.

One of the journalist’s suggestions was that certain platforms should never be allowed to be fully encrypted. If you use Facebook messenger then you should expect your data to be trawled through by alogrithms designed to identify problematic material. The problem with Facebook is that predators can identify and target young kids and trick them into sharing inappropriate images, then blackmail them into even worse transgressions. Apparently this is a huge - and growing - problem. He says Facebook should tell everyone that if they want an encrypted chat to use their other platform, whatsapp. The benefit of whatsapp being it can’t be used to cold call strangers after viewing their online profiles.

Seems reasonable to me.

What does everyone else think?

This is correct. I’ve tried to investigate one and it was almost impossible.
Matthew Falder is probably the most notorious example of something like this.

 

[esmufc07]

This is correct. I’ve tried to investigate one and it was almost impossible.
Matthew Falder is probably the most notorious example of something my like this.

Christ I wish I hadn't googled his name. Some truly depraved people living amongst us.

 

[Hugh Jass]

Christ I wish I hadn't googled his name. Some truly depraved people living amongst us.

Cambridge graduate as well. You just never know with people.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

This is the problem when you have a far-right government. You'll see a needless ban on apps like Tik Tok and WeChat "because China" but they allow any American based company to run wild. What there should be are stronger regulations in place and stronger support for enforcement of those regulations but hey "all private business can regulate itself" is a mantra among the far-right nuts that control the US Senate atm.

 

[Sky1981]

It should be traceable, but only with court warrant under a very stringent procedure. Your net activity should be 100% private until the court allows you to be scrutinized.

Undercover should be posted on dark web for serious crimes, but leave harmless vices and fetishes alone.

I believe it's case by case basis, there's no 100% correct approach. A politician having a bondage fantasy shouldn't be scrutinized for what he does on his free time, assuming it's all just adult fantasy. The problem is abuse of power, he who holds the internet database is as powerful as god

 

[e.cantona]

Hopefully, in a not too distant future, privacy will become a non-issue.

Today, I really value my privacy. I don’t want some government in four/etc years to have open access to all of me. Nazis and all that.. As it is, they can just buy it from Google. Not that I trust Google so much, but still, it's at least something. The problem is when literally everyone has access to "WMDs". Version 10 of 3D printing, nano/bio-tech,… I don’t trust anyone to not push the nuclear button and destroy the world. Someone has to have access to everything we do in the future. All the time.

 

[0le]

Using child pornography as an excuse for lack of message encryption is ridiculous. The journalist should value what little privacy they have left because it is being eroded further and further without any meaningful public debate and legal legislation in place to prevent abuse.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Using child pornography as an excuse for lack of message encryption is ridiculous. The journalist should value what little privacy they have left because it is being eroded further and further without any meaningful public debate and legal legislation in place to prevent abuse.

It really isn’t.

And, to be clear, the journalist in question isn’t looking for reasons to ban encryption and decided CP would be a convenient excuse. He’s done some incredibly thorough research on everything to do with child sexual abuse and the increasingly ineffective efforts to combat it over the last couple of decades. He seems genuinely horrified about how this thing is getting away from us, as a society.

Just one small element of this research was his realisation that complete end to end encryption of private messaging on every platform makes an extremely difficult job almost impossible. So he’s asking a simple question. Do we really need this level of encryption across the board? Or should it be a little more targetted?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It should be traceable, but only with court warrant under a very stringent procedure. Your net activity should be 100% private until the court allows you to be scrutinized.

Undercover should be posted on dark web for serious crimes, but leave harmless vices and fetishes alone.

I believe it's case by case basis, there's no 100% correct approach. A politician having a bondage fantasy shouldn't be scrutinized for what he does on his free time, assuming it's all just adult fantasy. The problem is abuse of power, he who holds the internet database is as powerful as god

That’s what I think. But proper end to end encryption prevents this. There’s no way for anyone to view that data without the consent/cooperation of its owner. At least that’s my understanding.

 

[VeevaVee]

What does it change? If they know someone's committing a crime they can still get access can't they?

Genuine question, as I don't know for sure, but it's definitely happened. They can 100% still get access to messages if they get hold of the device. Whatsapp certainly isn't some safe haven so not sure why Messenger would be. Even apps that specialise in privacy have been accessed by police and secret service. There was a huge bust on dealers pretty recently because of this, which involved several countries.

 

[Wibble]

It should be traceable, but only with court warrant under a very stringent procedure. Your net activity should be 100% private until the court allows you to be scrutinized.

Undercover should be posted on dark web for serious crimes, but leave harmless vices and fetishes alone.

I believe it's case by case basis, there's no 100% correct approach. A politician having a bondage fantasy shouldn't be scrutinized for what he does on his free time, assuming it's all just adult fantasy. The problem is abuse of power, he who holds the internet database is as powerful as god

I have no idea what the answer is but you can't uninvent encryption so I'm not sure how beneficial it will be to have everyday messaging apps built with a backdoor. The problem with case by case is who decides which cases are important? No easy answers here imo.

 

[jungledrums]

What does it change? If they know someone's committing a crime they can still get access can't they?

Genuine question, as I don't know for sure, but it's definitely happened. They can 100% still get access to messages if they get hold of the device. Whatsapp certainly isn't some safe haven so not sure why Messenger would be. Even apps that specialise in privacy have been accessed by police and secret service. There was a huge bust on dealers pretty recently because of this, which involved several countries.

In your example, law enforcement/security services have access to the device. I think this relates to reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is likely to be, committed, but no access to a physical device per se.

More generally though, encryption doesn’t just prevent targeted enforcement against CSAM. It also has wider implications in tackling organised crime, terrorism etc.

 

[VeevaVee]

In your example, law enforcement/security services have access to the device. I think this relates to reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is likely to be, committed, but no access to a physical device per se.

More generally though, encryption doesn’t just prevent targeted enforcement against CSAM. It also has wider implications in tackling organised crime, terrorism etc.

Are the implications enough that every person has to lose out on privacy and face the consequences of the abuse of it though? I lean towards thinking not, personally, but get why some would think otherwise.

If only we could trust our privacy not to be abused by companies. It seems quite likely it's going to get abused by the government more and more too. Who knows what would happen if we ever end up with a totally batshit one in charge, which doesn't seem an impossible reality in the near future.

 

[Marcosdeto]

Ha! True. Given his libertarian stance on free speech I was expecting him to be a data privacy absolutist. Quite the opposite, as it turns out.

What’s wrong with a libertarian stance of free speech? I’m not a libertarian -the truth is i have no idea what a libertarian is- but I would like to know why an opinion is good or bad beforehand depending on who is coming from.
And i’;m asking you because you are a nice guy, and i’m concerned about a trend were people, are shut down because of simple disagreements. Cheers Pogue

 

[0le]

It really isn’t.

And, to be clear, the journalist in question isn’t looking for reasons to ban encryption and decided CP would be a convenient excuse. He’s done some incredibly thorough research on everything to do with child sexual abuse and the increasingly ineffective efforts to combat it over the last couple of decades. He seems genuinely horrified about how this thing is getting away from us, as a society.

Just one small element of this research was his realisation that complete end to end encryption of private messaging on every platform makes an extremely difficult job almost impossible. So he’s asking a simple question. Do we really need this level of encryption across the board? Or should it be a little more targetted?

The irony is that journalism is one industry which relies heavily on encrypted communication. The journalist has not done enough research if they come to a conclusion that removing encrypted messaging can help solve this problem.

Look at the logistics for a moment. How can any government place a guarantee that a backdoor will not be exploited by another nefarious group or the government itself. We've already had our elections influenced, so what next? Also, if you decide to backdoor or remove encryption from one service, why not another service? If you don't remove it from all services, the plan fails from the start. And many people need secure communication and this should never be undermined. Governments need secure communication. Businesses need secure communication to protect commercial interests. Health services need secure communication. The list goes on.

For the journalist to suggest that there is an "obsession with privacy " is absurd. If anything, we need stronger legislation which protects our online data and forces companies to properly handle our data. Better security practices will therefore lead to better privacy. What this journalist proposes is a step in the wrong direction and leads us further along a very dangerous path.

If you want a prime example of why we need secure communication, look no further than China.

 

[Wibble]

Listened to a Sam Harris podcast which brings this issue front and centre. He was talking to a journalist from the NYT who’s done some incredible work on an absolute EXPLOSION of child porn online (from 170,000 reported incidents in the US in 2007 to 17,000,000 in 2017) The journalist thinks the obsession with privacy is making far too easy to share child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online (that’s apparently a better phrase than “child pornography”). The tech companies aren’t doing enough to help law enforcement and Facebook’s plans to end to end encrypt Mesanger could have catastrophic consequences.

One of the journalist’s suggestions was that certain platforms should never be allowed to be fully encrypted. If you use Facebook messenger then you should expect your data to be trawled through by alogrithms designed to identify problematic material. The problem with Facebook is that predators can identify and target young kids and trick them into sharing inappropriate images, then blackmail them into even worse transgressions. Apparently this is a huge - and growing - problem. He says Facebook should tell everyone that if they want an encrypted chat to use their other platform, whatsapp. The benefit of whatsapp being it can’t be used to cold call strangers after viewing their online profiles.

Seems reasonable to me.

What does everyone else think?

I always get nervous when Sam Harris discusses things as he doesn't seem to be as smart as he thinks he is and often seems to lurch to conclusions even when I agree with him on something. He is no Daniel Dennett.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

What’s wrong with a libertarian stance of free speech? I’m not a libertarian -the truth is i have no idea what a libertarian is- but I would like to know why an opinion is good or bad beforehand depending on who is coming from.
And i’;m asking you because you are a nice guy, and i’m concerned about a trend were people, are shut down because of simple disagreements. Cheers Pogue

I don’t think it’s a bad opinion. It’s one I generally share. To a point. I just think a lot of people like Harris are one dimensional in that you can predict their opinion on anything based on what you already know about their politics. And I’m more inclined to listen to people whose opinions seem to be more thought through and less predictable.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I always get nervous when Sam Harris discusses things as he doesn't seem to be as smart as he thinks he is and often seems to lurch to conclusions even when I agree with him on something. He is no Daniel Dennett.

One thing he doesn’t lack is intelligence. If he’s not as smart as he thinks he is, I dread to think where that leaves me!

 

[Wibble]

One thing he doesn’t lack is intelligence. If he’s not as smart as he thinks he is, I dread to think where that leaves me!

I find many of his conclusions illogical. Or rather ones where he has decided what parts of the evidence to follow.

I'm also.sure his IQ would put us all to shame but I still suspect he thinks he is far brighter than he actually is.

 

[Marcosdeto]

I don’t think it’s a bad opinion. It’s one I generally share. To a point. I just think a lot of people like Harris are one dimensional in that you can predict their opinion on anything based on what you already know about their politics. And I’m more inclined to listen to people whose opinions seem to be more thought through and less predictable.

excellent. thank you

 

[jungledrums]

Are the implications enough that every person has to lose out on privacy and face the consequences of the abuse of it though? I lean towards thinking not, personally, but get why some would think otherwise.

If only we could trust our privacy not to be abused by companies. It seems quite likely it's going to get abused by the government more and more too. Who knows what would happen if we ever end up with a totally batshit one in charge, which doesn't seem an impossible reality in the near future.

I’m not sure I’d agree that “every person is losing out”; every person has the potential to lose out, perhaps. Personal communications aren’t just accessed by governments on a whim. The only time (generally speaking) that personal communications are forensically examined is when one is suspected of committing a crime, or is linked with malicious groups/individuals. It’s not like all our personal data is being accessed 24/7. With that caveat in mind, I do believe it is important to partially cede some liberties in pursuit of a safer society.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The irony is that journalism is one industry which relies heavily on encrypted communication. The journalist has not done enough research if they come to a conclusion that removing encrypted messaging can help solve this problem.

Look at the logistics for a moment. How can any government place a guarantee that a backdoor will not be exploited by another nefarious group or the government itself. We've already had our elections influenced, so what next? Also, if you decide to backdoor or remove encryption from one service, why not another service? If you don't remove it from all services, the plan fails from the start. And many people need secure communication and this should never be undermined. Governments need secure communication. Businesses need secure communication to protect commercial interests. Health services need secure communication. The list goes on.

For the journalist to suggest that there is an "obsession with privacy " is absurd. If anything, we need stronger legislation which protects our online data and forces companies to properly handle our data. Better security practices will therefore lead to better privacy. What this journalist proposes is a step in the wrong direction and leads us further along a very dangerous path.

If you want a prime example of why we need secure communication, look no further than China.

Come on dude, read the OP. Nobody is saying that we remove encryption from all services. In the full interview he even refers to heavily encrypted communication tools that he wouldn’t have been able to do his work as a journalist without. He has a specific issue with Facebook messenger being encrypted. For what seem to me like very good reasons. The issue here is not that encryption should be done away with altogether. It’s that it shouldn’t be 100% ubiquitous and left in the hands of the tech companies to decide when they want to use it.

Depending on the nature of the platform there might be scenarios where a company should not be allowed to incorporate fully encrypted private messaging. Which can be dealt with on a case by case basis. And that makes sense to me.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I’m not sure I’d agree that “every person is losing out”; every person has the potential to lose out, perhaps. Personal communications aren’t just accessed by governments on a whim. The only time (generally speaking) that personal communications are forensically examined is when one is suspected of committing a crime, or is linked with malicious groups/individuals. It’s not like all our personal data is being accessed 24/7. With that caveat in mind, I do believe it is important to partially cede some liberties in pursuit of a safer society.

The access this journalist was suggesting is needed (on a limited number of platforms) is allowing access to automated scanning for child sexual abuse material. Apparently this can now be done very effectively by algorithms. But without that access we’re completely reliant on individuals to report these materials if they happen to accidentally stumble across them.

 

[neverdie]

If you use Facebook messenger then you should expect your data to be trawled through by alogrithms designed to identify problematic material.

If it's just Facebook, I don't think anyone would care. How far does that go though? Should we also expect to have the rest of our personal communications open to pre-crime algorithms because of a minority criminal element?

 

[jungledrums]

The access this journalist was suggesting is needed (on a limited number of platforms) is allowing access to automated scanning for child sexual abuse material. Apparently this can now be done very effectively by algorithms. But without that access we’re completely reliant on individuals to report these materials if they happen to accidentally stumble across them.

Apologies, I wasn’t clear. Data will be accessed, yes, but it won’t actually be flagged and scrutinised by individuals unless offensive material is found. I think that’s an important distinction, as some seem to think that this sort of development would mean one’s personal data - ie personal messages/pictures etc - are scrutinised physically by people. That’s not quite the case, as you say, with these automated scans.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If it's just Facebook, I don't think anyone would care. How far does that go though? Should we also expect to have the rest of our personal communications open to pre-crime algorithms because of a minority criminal element?

I’m far from being an expert but I think it should be dealt with case by case.

If you have a platform which people can search to identify named underage individuals then you shouldn’t assume an automatic right to full encryption of all data shared/stored on that platform.

If you have a platform which is accessible only by adults (with appropriate measures to protect kids from using) then encrypt away.

 

[Siorac]

I’m far from being an expert but I think it should be dealt with case by case.

If you have a platform which people can search to identify named underage individuals then you shouldn’t assume an automatic right to full encryption of all data shared/stored on that platform.

If you have a platform which is accessible only by adults (with appropriate measures to protect kids from using) then encrypt away.

Betting sites usually require a photo ID to confirm you are an adult before allowing you to place bets or withdraw money.

The same system could be used for full end-to-end encryption on social media: make it an optional feature that the user can turn on only if they submit proof that they are legal adults. For anyone under the legal age, parental permission is required. If two people start a conversation and one of them doesn't have encryption turned on, the other party is warned (a small banner at the top of the screen would do the job) that the conversation is not fully encrypted.

Now, Facebook would fight tooth and nail against such a measure, obviously. But they'd also fight against banning full encryption, too.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Betting sites usually require a photo ID to confirm you are an adult before allowing you to place bets or withdraw money.

The same system could be used for full end-to-end encryption on social media: make it an optional feature that the user can turn on only if they submit proof that they are legal adults. For anyone under the legal age, parental permission is required. If two people start a conversation and one of them doesn't have encryption turned on, the other party is warned (a small banner at the top of the screen would do the job) that the conversation is not fully encrypted.

Now, Facebook would fight tooth and nail against such a measure, obviously. But they'd also fight against banning full encryption, too.

That sounds like a pretty good solution actually.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I’m far from being an expert but I think it should be dealt with case by case.

If you have a platform which people can search to identify named underage individuals then you shouldn’t assume an automatic right to full encryption of all data shared/stored on that platform.

If you have a platform which is accessible only by adults (with appropriate measures to protect kids from using) then encrypt away.

Isn't a better solution for apps like Facebook to change their default privacy settings so that when people sign up their profiles can't be viewed by just anyone?

Maybe it's already like that?

 

[0le]

Come on dude, read the OP.

Did you read my post?

Nobody is saying that we remove encryption from all services.

I actually address the first part of your new post in my previous post. Here is my original response to that, which as far as I can tell, you did not yet respond to:

Also, if you decide to backdoor or remove encryption from one service, why not another service? If you don't remove it from all services, the plan fails from the start.

So if it is removed from just one service what do you think will happen? The criminals will just use another service, rendering the original action pointless and making it a weaker solution at the expense of thousands, perhaps millions of law abiding citizens who use the service.

Depending on the nature of the platform there might be scenarios where a company should not be allowed to incorporate fully encrypted private messaging. Which can be dealt with on a case by case basis. And that makes sense to me.

Encryption with a backdoor is not encryption. There is either a meaningful encryption or there is not. There cannot really be any "in between". It is dishonest to tell users the data is encrypted and then at the same time have a backdoor key to decrypt and analyse the data. Sure, we can have open communication and that does already exist, but then encryption already exists as well and open standards and applications such as Signal exist, so criminals can either design, create and use new software or use the existing tools easily.

It is also incredibly naïve for the journalist to assume that the backdoors will just be used to try and catch criminals. It can and will be exploited by governments and the companies for whatever purpose they see fit, without any regard for the law.

You stated this earlier:

Just one small element of this research was his realisation that complete end to end encryption of private messaging on every platform makes an extremely difficult job almost impossible.

So if it is just one small element of whatever research they did that actually leads to a worse service for thousands of people, why not actually focus on all the other elements and forget this idea completely?

I really don't think you quite grasp just how dangerous it is to allow backdoors into communication platforms, even just for one service. It is the start of an extremely dangerous and slippery slope and as I said, look at China for how dangerous it can become. And the worst thing is that it won't even make a difference, because as I said, criminals will quickly and easily move onto something else.

Isn't a better solution for apps like Facebook to change their default privacy settings so that when people sign up their profiles can't be viewed by just anyone?

Maybe it's already like that?

I cannot speak of Facebook in particular, but Windows 10, Google Android and browsers such as Firefox and Chrome have terrible privacy settings from fresh installation. I'd be surprised if Facebook was any different.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Isn't a better solution for apps like Facebook to change their default privacy settings so that when people sign up their profiles can't be viewed by just anyone?

Maybe it's already like that?

I think it probably is? Feck knows. I despise FB and haven’t used it in years. The thing is, kids probably want other kids they don’t know to see their profiles so wouldn’t choose that option (and I know, most kids don’t really use FB any more)

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Did you read my post?



I actually address the first part of your new post in my previous post. Here is my original response to that, which as far as I can tell, you did not yet respond to:

So if it is removed from just one service what do you think will happen? The criminals will just use another service, rendering the original action pointless and making it a weaker solution at the expense of thousands, perhaps millions of law abiding citizens who use the service.


Encryption with a backdoor is not encryption. There is either a meaningful encryption or there is not. There cannot really be any "in between". It is dishonest to tell users the data is encrypted and then at the same time have a backdoor key to decrypt and analyse the data. Sure, we can have open communication and that does already exist, but then encryption already exists as well and open standards and applications such as Signal exist, so criminals can either design, create and use new software or use the existing tools easily.

It is also incredibly naïve for the journalist to assume that the backdoors will just be used to try and catch criminals. It can and will be exploited by governments and the companies for whatever purpose they see fit, without any regard for the law.

You stated this earlier:

So if it is just one small element of whatever research they did that actually leads to a worse service for thousands of people, why not actually focus on all the other elements and forget this idea completely?

I really don't think you quite grasp just how dangerous it is to allow backdoors into communication platforms, even just for one service. It is the start of an extremely dangerous and slippery slope and as I said, look at China for how dangerous it can become. And the worst thing is that it won't even make a difference, because as I said, criminals will quickly and easily move onto something else.



I cannot speak of Facebook in particular, but Windows 10, Google Android and browsers such as Firefox and Chrome have terrible privacy settings from fresh installation. I'd be surprised if Facebook was any different.

I’m not getting into a multi-quote back and forth. I will just repeat my main point, which you seem to be missing. This isn’t about stopping trying to stop encryption altogether, on every platform. Of course criminals will find a way to share content via something other than Facebook messenger but that’s not the point. I already explained this in the OP.

And I disagree with your premise that not allowing tech companies encrypt some services/platforms will inevitably end up with them not encrypting all of their platforms/services. That makes no sense at all. Their will always be a market for fully encrypted online messaging and where there’s a market there’s an incentive for them to provide that service.

 

[0le]

I’m not getting into a multi-quote back and forth. I will just repeat my main point, which you seem to be missing. This isn’t about stopping trying to stop encryption altogether, on every platform. Of course criminals will find a way to share content via something other than Facebook messenger but that’s not the point. I already explained this in the OP.

Ah yes the "I don't get the original point", with the refusal to debate any of the criticisms raised. I don't understand why you persistently seem to want to ignore the consequences of doing what that journalists proposes. I've shared those concerns, but for whatever reason they don't seem relevant or important to you.

Let us assume that this this only happens to Facebook, and I reiterate, it is incredible naïve to think this wouldn't continue to other services. By your own admission:

and I know, most kids don’t really use FB any more

So even if we just focus on Facebook, what exactly is the point if the kids aren't even using it anymore?

And I disagree with your premise that not allowing tech companies encrypt some services/platforms will inevitably end up with them not encrypting all of their platforms/services. That makes no sense at all.

I did not say that. I stated that if you introduce encryption, if it has a backdoor key, then the encryption is irrelevant.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Ah yes the "I don't get the original point", with the refusal to debate any of the criticisms raised. I don't understand why you persistently seem to want to ignore the consequences of doing what that journalists proposes. I've shared those concerns, but for whatever reason they don't seem relevant or important to you.

Let us assume that this this only happens to Facebook, and I reiterate, it is incredible naïve to think this wouldn't continue to other services. By your own admission:


So even if we just focus on Facebook, what exactly is the point if the kids aren't even using it anymore?



I did not say that. I stated that if you introduce encryption, if it has a backdoor key, then the encryption is irrelevant.

Yes you did. That is exactly what you said ffs

It is the start of an extremely dangerous and slippery slope and as I said, look at China for how dangerous it can become.

You even repeated the slippery slope stuff in your latest post!

And I think I’ll leave it at that. I’m not sure why you’re repeatedly missing my point but we’re obviously wasting each other’s time here.

 

[0le]

And I think I’ll leave it at that. I’m not sure why you’re repeatedly missing my point but we’re obviously wasting each other’s time here.

Yeah, completely disregard everything I've said for the third time and reiterate that "I don't get your point" only because you cannot actually provide anything more to back up the journalists absolutely ridiculous suggestion.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yeah, completely disregard everything I've said for the third time and reiterate that "I don't get your point" only because you cannot actually provide anything more to back up the journalists absolutely ridiculous suggestion.

Ah feck it. Why can’t I walk away from stupid arguments like this?!! Re-read our posts. You’re misunderstanding what’s been said. I think English isn’t your first language, so maybe that’s the issue?

I’ve no idea what you expect me to provide to back up this journalist’s idea. It’s a very simple idea. Which doesn’t need any evidence to back it up. He thinks Facebook shouldn’t be allowed to encrypt Facebook Messanger. That’s it. That’s the suggestion. The reasons for this suggestion have already been laid out for you, multiple times. But I’ll do it one more time, as it’s obviously gone over your head. Facebook Messanger allows sexual predators to exploit vulnerable kids (google “sexploitation”) on a scale that isn’t happening (or even possible) on any other online platform. This is happening right now, on a massive scale, and law enforcement are fighting an uphill battle to protect these kids. Which full encryption will make exponentially harder.

You seem to think his suggestion is absolutely ridiculous because “slippery slope” and “look at China”. But I’m the one not backing up my comments here?!

Now I really am walking away. This is fecking tedious.