Privacy on the internet

[0le]

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.

The suggestion is still ridiculous, regardless of how angry you get, and also how disrespectful you treat me. The only suggestion of merit I read in the thread was to use ID's.

 

[Wibble]

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.

If some services are encrypted won't Paedo's just use those that are? I get the scale argument but hard to treat one service so differently from others and along with the benefits of messages being unencrypted for desirable reasons it is hard to decouple the benefits from the disadvantages that may allow state/political or criminal dabbling in your private affairs.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

This discussion is a textbook example of a moral panic.

 

[jungledrums]

This discussion is a textbook example of a moral panic.

If you take this to be a discussion on encryption more broadly, rather than just a discussion on Facebook as a vessel for the proliferation of CSAM, then your reference could not be further from the truth.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

If you take this to be a discussion on encryption more broadly, rather than just a discussion on Facebook as a vessel for the proliferation of CSAM, then your reference could not be further from the truth.

Sorry if my initial post was a bit vague, and for responding late. If I understand your post correctly, then I think I agree with you.

The discussion about encryption and rights is a valid one, though it is there's not much to discuss, privacy is a right. Erosion of freedoms is a one way affair, once rights are given away they are rarely given back. I'm personally a bit suspicious when the argument to take rights away is built more on appeals to emotion than logic.

The moral panic I refer too is the "... but terrorists/pedophiles" or whatever boogeyman (folk devil) excuse states use to to scare people into giving away their rights, or justify taking it away. It's always some bs excuse that relies more on emotion than logic. Take this discussion for example, the measures are unlikely to be productive as it doesn't include all platforms, but some would still see it as 'justified'. Because the nature of the issue riles people up and prevents critical thinking. Or the "fact" that encrypted platforms have encouraged a rise in child abuse cases. Is there a reliable way to measure that, then compare it to pre encryption through other mediums? All that before even considering whether the prevalence and expected outcome justifies relinquishing privacy.

Edit: I'd also question the bit about it being OK because an algorithm not a human does it. An algorithm is just a program, there's someone programming it, so not fool proof, and someone giving judgment on what the "algorithm" comes up with, so it is subjective.

 

[jungledrums]

Sorry if my initial post was a bit vague, and for responding late. If I understand your post correctly, then I think I agree with you.

The discussion about encryption and rights is a valid one, though it is there's not much to discuss, privacy is a right. Erosion of freedoms is a one way affair, once rights are given away they are rarely given back. I'm personally a bit suspicious when the argument to take rights away is built more on appeals to emotion than logic.

The moral panic I refer too is the "... but terrorists/pedophiles" or whatever boogeyman (folk devil) excuse states use to to scare people into giving away their rights, or justify taking it away. It's always some bs excuse that relies more on emotion than logic. Take this discussion for example, the measures are unlikely to be productive as it doesn't include all platforms, but some would still see it as 'justified'. Because the nature of the issue riles people up and prevents critical thinking. Or the "fact" that encrypted platforms have encouraged a rise in child abuse cases. Is there a reliable way to measure that, then compare it to pre encryption through other mediums? All that before even considering whether the prevalence and expected outcome justifies relinquishing privacy.

Edit: I'd also question the bit about it being OK because an algorithm not a human does it. An algorithm is just a program, there's someone programming it, so not fool proof, and someone giving judgment on what the "algorithm" comes up with, so it is subjective.

No worries, I take your point.

My understanding is that moral panics are often characterised by a lack of actual threat. The perceived threat is huge, sure, but in reality, the specific cause of the moral panic is of relatively low consequence. In this case, though, you’ve got encryption that allows the most heinous of individuals to offend, so the actual threat is catastrophic if realised (ie terrorism, child abuse). With respect, I don’t believe that has created a moral panic; law enforcement and international/domestic security agencies dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to thwarting these very offenders. By this logic, could you not argue that all crimes are ultimately creating moral panics? I say this because criminals are in the absolute minority of society.

With the way technology is advancing, the issue of end to end encryption aiding all kinds of offenders is likely to worsen over time, so the discussion around privacy and end to end encryption isn’t just about the boogeyman pedophile.

I agree with your last few points though. I doubt encryption has resulted in an increase in child exploitation, but perhaps it has made it easier for offenders to share this sort of material? Maybe there is a correlation between ease of access and quantity of offenders.

Re your edit: I understand that too, and respect your opinion. I don’t agree though: I’d rather sacrifice some privacy if this sort of access to our data results in fewer depraved bastards roaming free.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

No worries, I take your point.

My understanding is that moral panics are often characterised by a lack of actual threat. The perceived threat is huge, sure, but in reality, the specific cause of the moral panic is of relatively low consequence. In this case, though, you’ve got encryption that allows the most heinous of individuals to offend, so the actual threat is catastrophic if realised (ie terrorism, child abuse). With respect, I don’t believe that has created a moral panic; law enforcement and international/domestic security agencies dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to thwarting these very offenders. By this logic, could you not argue that all crimes are ultimately creating moral panics? I say this because criminals are in the absolute minority of society.

With the way technology is advancing, the issue of end to end encryption aiding all kinds of offenders is likely to worsen over time, so the discussion around privacy and end to end encryption isn’t just about the boogeyman pedophile.

I agree with your last few points though. I doubt encryption has resulted in an increase in child exploitation, but perhaps it has made it easier for offenders to share this sort of material? Maybe there is a correlation between ease of access and quantity of offenders.

Re your edit: I understand that too, and respect your opinion. I don’t agree though: I’d rather sacrifice some privacy if this sort of access to our data results in fewer depraved bastards roaming free.

Moral panic isn't just were there is no actual threat, it can also be that the threat exists, but is overplayed by media, making it seem bigger and more of an issue that is. The war on drugs is an example where the issue is real, but the cure was worse than the disease.

Child abuse is a wicked and vile type of crime, but ending encryption doesn't make it go away. It isn't just an online problem. That's just one facet of the problem. What I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be made to feel that 'something has to be done about this!' or that 'if I sacrifice something then I will surely get something good in return'. Sometimes no action is better than just acting out, and sometimes you sacrifice and get nothing (or worse) in return.

If a viable solution that could reduce child abuse came up, even at a price, then I'd be all for it. I think that will come from expert opinions, that understand the issue, the true scale of it and can tackle it as a problem, without their judgements being clouded by sensational headlines or primal aversion or fear.

 

[Gehrman]

Not sure if this is the right thread to put this in since we don't have a free speech thread.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/24/censorship-is-the-greatest-online-harm/

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No worries, I take your point.

My understanding is that moral panics are often characterised by a lack of actual threat. The perceived threat is huge, sure, but in reality, the specific cause of the moral panic is of relatively low consequence. In this case, though, you’ve got encryption that allows the most heinous of individuals to offend, so the actual threat is catastrophic if realised (ie terrorism, child abuse). With respect, I don’t believe that has created a moral panic; law enforcement and international/domestic security agencies dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to thwarting these very offenders. By this logic, could you not argue that all crimes are ultimately creating moral panics? I say this because criminals are in the absolute minority of society.

With the way technology is advancing, the issue of end to end encryption aiding all kinds of offenders is likely to worsen over time, so the discussion around privacy and end to end encryption isn’t just about the boogeyman pedophile.

I agree with your last few points though. I doubt encryption has resulted in an increase in child exploitation, but perhaps it has made it easier for offenders to share this sort of material? Maybe there is a correlation between ease of access and quantity of offenders.

Re your edit: I understand that too, and respect your opinion. I don’t agree though: I’d rather sacrifice some privacy if this sort of access to our data results in fewer depraved bastards roaming free.

Moral panic isn't just were there is no actual threat, it can also be that the threat exists, but is overplayed by media, making it seem bigger and more of an issue that is. The war on drugs is an example where the issue is real, but the cure was worse than the disease.

Child abuse is a wicked and vile type of crime, but ending encryption doesn't make it go away. It isn't just an online problem. That's just one facet of the problem. What I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be made to feel that 'something has to be done about this!' or that 'if I sacrifice something then I will surely get something good in return'. Sometimes no action is better than just acting out, and sometimes you sacrifice and get nothing (or worse) in return.

If a viable solution that could reduce child abuse came up, even at a price, then I'd be all for it. I think that will come from expert opinions, that understand the issue, the true scale of it and can tackle it as a problem, without their judgements being clouded by sensational headlines or primal aversion or fear.

Regarding your discussion re whether this issue is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed urgently vs an unsubstantiated moral panic, this article will address that far better than I can. It’s very long but incredibly well researched and presented (IMO) One of the journalists behind it was interviewed in the podcast referenced in the OP.

 

[jungledrums]

Moral panic isn't just were there is no actual threat, it can also be that the threat exists, but is overplayed by media, making it seem bigger and more of an issue that is. The war on drugs is an example where the issue is real, but the cure was worse than the disease.

Child abuse is a wicked and vile type of crime, but ending encryption doesn't make it go away. It isn't just an online problem. That's just one facet of the problem. What I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be made to feel that 'something has to be done about this!' or that 'if I sacrifice something then I will surely get something good in return'. Sometimes no action is better than just acting out, and sometimes you sacrifice and get nothing (or worse) in return.

If a viable solution that could reduce child abuse came up, even at a price, then I'd be all for it. I think that will come from expert opinions, that understand the issue, the true scale of it and can tackle it as a problem, without their judgements being clouded by sensational headlines or primal aversion or fear.

We can agree it’s not just ‘no actual threat’, I was more referring to a disproportionate reaction to the actual threat. I suppose that’s where we disagree - I find it difficult to discuss end to end encryption without also considering the effects of this sort of encryption on crime more broadly (as in, beyond child exploitation). Interesting discussion though!

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Regarding your discussion re whether this issue is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed urgently vs an unsubstantiated moral panic, this article will address that far better than I can. It’s very long but incredibly well researched and presented (IMO) One of the journalists behind it was interviewed in the podcast referenced in the OP.

That's a very grim read. I think it is an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it was only one child, then that's one child too many.

It's really disheartening to read about the lack of man power, outdated equipment and inadequate funding as the main reasons authorities couldn't investigate all the cases they were aware of. I would be 100% for increased funding of authorities investigating child sexual exploitation and abuse.

 

[jungledrums]

That's a very grim read. I think it is an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it was only one child, then that's one child too many.

It's really disheartening to read about the lack of man power, outdated equipment and inadequate funding as the main reasons authorities couldn't investigate all the cases they were aware of. I would be 100% for increased funding of authorities investigating child sexual exploitation and abuse.

Just out of interest, what if these very same authorities required additional funding to trawl through our metadata so as to prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse? Would you still support increased funding?

Moral panic isn't just were there is no actual threat, it can also be that the threat exists, but is overplayed by media, making it seem bigger and more of an issue that is. The war on drugs is an example where the issue is real, but the cure was worse than the disease.

Child abuse is a wicked and vile type of crime, but ending encryption doesn't make it go away. It isn't just an online problem. That's just one facet of the problem. What I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be made to feel that 'something has to be done about this!' or that 'if I sacrifice something then I will surely get something good in return'. Sometimes no action is better than just acting out, and sometimes you sacrifice and get nothing (or worse) in return.

If a viable solution that could reduce child abuse came up, even at a price, then I'd be all for it. I think that will come from expert opinions, that understand the issue, the true scale of it and can tackle it as a problem, without their judgements being clouded by sensational headlines or primal aversion or fear.

Sorry just wanted to add - there are many that are arguing that blanket end to end encryption is incredibly dangerous; I don’t just mean on forums, I mean experts. Again, I have to cite the expenditure by the relevant agencies tasked with preventing cyber crime (of all forms): they unanimously argue against end to end encryption across the board, citing its potential dangers. I know this is a slightly simplistic argument (ie equating funding directly to significance), but the broad point is that there are many experts in favour of moderating the growing level of end to end encryption.

... But if you are just talking about child exploitation, then I mostly agree with your points.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

We can agree it’s not just ‘no actual threat’, I was more referring to a disproportionate reaction to the actual threat. I suppose that’s where we disagree - I find it difficult to discuss end to end encryption without also considering the effects of this sort of encryption on crime more broadly (as in, beyond child exploitation). Interesting discussion though!

It is an interesting discussion. Although we disagree, I enjoyed discussing with you.

The bit about it's use beyond child exploitation, there's no way that if introduced it would stop there. Out of interest would you be for or against that?

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Just out of interest, what if these very same authorities required additional funding to trawl through our metadata so as to prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse? Would you still support increased funding?

Probably not. If we could 100% be sure it's about protecting children I wouldn't be too bothered, but I suspect it's just using an emotional issue to take us a step closer to an Orwellian dystopia.

Sorry just wanted to add - there are many that are arguing that blanket end to end encryption is incredibly dangerous; I don’t just mean on forums, I mean experts. Again, I have to cite the expenditure by the relevant agencies tasked with preventing cyber crime (of all forms): they unanimously argue against end to end encryption across the board, citing its potential dangers. I know this is a slightly simplistic argument (ie equating funding directly to significance), but the broad point is that there are many experts in favour of moderating the growing level of end to end encryption.

... But if you are just talking about child exploitation, then I mostly agree with your points.

I'm against state sponsered snooping. Before the internet we sent our mail through the post office with the expectation it was private and wouldn't be tampered with. Sending open letters so the government could just check we weren't up to no good would be ridiculous.

Take the case of Adnan Khashoggi, butchered because of his hacked whatsapp messages. Or online banking. There are many legitimate reasons for needing heavy encryption.

Edit: I'm not against surveilling persons of interest in active investigations, but am strongly against any form of blanket surveillance.

 

[jungledrums]

It is an interesting discussion. Although we disagree, I enjoyed discussing with you.

The bit about it's use beyond child exploitation, there's no way that if introduced it would stop there. Out of interest would you be for or against that?

I think I’d be in favour in your example, but I’d never ever be in favour of absolute removal of encryption. I understand the opposing position and I acknowledge the many merits of such a view. Personally, though, my right to privacy does not trump my support of a more secure society. I said earlier that I’m happy to cede some liberties (and still live a largely private life I might add) in pursuit of a safer society, and that’s still my view (in a western democratic country, anyway). Absolute privacy is not a right.

Probably not. If we could 100% be sure it's about protecting children I wouldn't be too bothered, but I suspect it's just using an emotional issue to take us a step closer to an Orwellian dystopia.

I'm against state sponsered snooping. Before the internet we sent our mail through the post office with the expectation it was private and wouldn't be tampered with. Sending open letters so the government could just check we weren't up to no good would be ridiculous.

Take the case of Adnan Khashoggi, butchered because of his hacked whatsapp messages. Or online banking. There are many legitimate reasons for needing heavy encryption.

Edit: I'm not against surveilling persons of interest in active investigations, but am strongly against any form of blanket surveillance.

Today, our digital footprint dwarves our physical one. All our info is held digitally now. With this in mind, I think it is inevitable (and in fact very important) that there is some degree of state snooping.

Times have changed since those pre-Internet letter-mailing days. Borders between countries continue to lose relevance by the year given you can contact people across the globe in a matter of seconds. Doesn’t it stand to reason that, with the technological advancements occurring, law enforcement/security agencies might also change practices to keep pace with an evolving and growing threat? The threat has changed, so the response must also change. I think, with appropriate oversight and regulation of these sorts of agencies, some state monitoring is necessary.

Just regarding your edit: often a person of interest is flagged to relevant authorities due to their online presence. So, would you be willing to have algorithms trawl through metadata if it meant more persons of interests would be identified and brought to justice before committing a crime?

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

I think I’d be in favour in your example, but I’d never ever be in favour of absolute removal of encryption. I understand the opposing position and I acknowledge the many merits of such a view. Personally, though, my right to privacy does not trump my support of a more secure society. I said earlier that I’m happy to cede some liberties (and still live a largely private life I might add) in pursuit of a safer society, and that’s still my view (in a western democratic country, anyway). Absolute privacy is not a right.

I think our opinions are opposed on this. While I agree that absolute privacy is not possible, I think that surveillance should be the exception rather than the rule. The onus should be on the authorities to prove that it is necessary, and not more intrusive than it needs to be, and it needs to be tailored to what and who they are surveilling or investigating. Requiring oversight, like a judge to sign over surveillance on a case by case basis would be reasonable.

Today, our digital footprint dwarves our physical one. All our info is held digitally now. With this in mind, I think it is inevitable (and in fact very important) that there is some degree of state snooping.

Times have changed since those pre-Internet letter-mailing days. Borders between countries continue to lose relevance by the year given you can contact people across the globe in a matter of seconds. Doesn’t it stand to reason that, with the technological advancements occurring, law enforcement/security agencies might also change practices to keep pace with an evolving and growing threat? The threat has changed, so the response must also change. I think, with appropriate oversight and regulation of these sorts of agencies, some state monitoring is necessary.

Before the digital age law enforcement still needed warrants and due process to search our physical belongings. I don't see why the change in format should change the principal.

The threat hasn't really evolved that much. Terrorism, child abuse, whatever other crime, has existed before the digital age. What’s new is that technology now exists that could allow authorities to surveil everyone, something that was not not possible before. Now they want to change the rules, and are creating these moral panics to scare or rile us up into giving up rights we shouldn't.

It's not like their hands are tied behind their backs. They already have more than enough means, and are snooping much more than we care to acknowledge. It could even be that someone's post on a forum like this lands them on some list for typing the wrong words or making a joke.

Just regarding your edit: often a person of interest is flagged to relevant authorities due to their online presence. So, would you be willing to have algorithms trawl through metadata if it meant more persons of interests would be identified and brought to justice before committing a crime?

Probably not. I would say it depends on the crime, but I wouldn't trust authorities not to expand use once a precedent had been set.

What is a crime differs from place to place and time to time. Weaponizing the law against "undesirables" and minorities is a possible outcome.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Police and a children’s charity have warned that a man who admitted 96 counts of child sexual abuse could have escaped justice if technology giants had already toughened their encryption.

David Wilson targeted young boys aged from four to 14, getting them to send compromising pictures and video. Some were so traumatised that they considered ending their lives.

Wilson on Monday pleaded guilty at Ipswich crown court to 96 offences against 51 children and will be sentenced in January. The National Crime Agency said he had targeted up to 500 children over four years.

The NCA said he used Facebook Messenger, which is planning to strengthen its encryption, meaning in future an offender like Wilson, using fake identities to prowl the internet for victims, could escape detection.

Rob Jones of the NCA said: “It’s chilling to think Wilson wouldn’t have been caught if Facebook had already implemented their end-to-end encryption plans, which will entirely prevent access to message content.

“The NCA, wider law enforcement and child safety groups are clear that the move will turn the lights out for policing and effectively provide cover for offenders such as Wilson.

Link

Concrete example of exactly the sort of thing the OP is about. Full article is worth a read.

@jungledrums
@Jaqen H'ghar

 

[Abizzz]

I'd much prefer if parents took responsibility and didn't let their children join platforms that allow unchecked access to the child by the entire human population rather than having everyone's messages checked by big brother. It's not as if they'd leave their 12 year old at some random location on earth and hope anyone who might have an interest in them has good intentions.

Then again Facebook just needs to die. Twitter too

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Link

Concrete example of exactly the sort of thing the OP is about. Full article is worth a read.

@jungledrums
@Jaqen H'ghar

Thanks for tagging me, but strangely I didn't get a notification for this.

If there was a case where I would be for surveillance trumping privacy, it's cases of child abuse, and a large majority of privacy conscious people probably feel this way. I suspect that'why cases like this are highlighted. I'm just not sure we can trust authorities to use it for some crimes and disregard it for others.

In this case I'm very pleased the offender did get caught, but the case opens up another can of worms. How could these children be allowed onto these platforms unsupervised? And if it hadn't been a pedophile, and they were exchanging pictures with another minor, which isn't a crime or at least not as legally serious, it's still an issue and a cause for worry. I mean should children this young be on a platform where they can contact and be contacted by strangers privately in the first place?

I suspect authorities will highlight very specific cases like this intentionally to drum up support for the case against privacy in general.

 

[Wibble]

So how do you ensure individual privacy while enabling law enforcement to legitimately do their job? I have no concrete idea.

Once you have backdoors into encrypted systems that opens them up to hacking or surveillance legal and illegal. If you make legitimate services build in features that allow surveillance even if theoretically just for law enforcement with a court issued warrant other services will pop up that don't and criminals will flock there instead. You might make it harder for paedos but it wouldn't stop them.

Lets face it most of us use a VPN that is enough to foil most law enforcement efforts without even really trying.