331–340 of 592 posts
> mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. Oh, bull crap. By this argument, literally no protection or liberty that allows even one child to be harmed could ever be tolerated. Why stop at vetting baby-sitters or teachers? We ought to require mandatory background checks for every person who ever visits a family or goes into a public space that might contain children. Law enforcement also o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obvious false equivalence. Just because we protect collecting/using certain data in certain contexts where we believe it does more harm than good doesn't mean we have to ban all data collection/use.
You specifically stipulated that the data optimization was bad - then why is data optimization of ads harmful? Doesn't serving relevant ads have more utility?
I am not sure if I'd be willing to make the argument we should ban (as in make illegal) collection of user data, but acting like such data is required to run ads is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a parent, I reject this disingenuous pretense of concern for "the children". Folks are eager to invoke children to justify the surveillance state while conveniently forgetting the plight of children when it comes to concentration camps, poverty, and climate change. Secondly, children themselves have frequently been the victim of surveillance abuses and there is no reason to suspect that this instance will be any d…
Yeah considering the profoundly terrible conditions in the concentration camps this administration is holding children in, this seems a littlllleeee disingenuous.
Edit: actually thinking you might be seriously talking about conditions for illegal immigrants detained in the US. Hyperbole, but still not a nice situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, why bring privacy into the fray at all? I'm not saying online systems for catching child abuse can't be implemented. But is it really where our efforts would be most effective? The question should be: how do you combat child abuse? For that, we need: 1- Strong reporting systems that connect the people who in contact with children (doctors, teachers, social workers) and centralize and distribute that information…
The tension between privacy and child abuse is laid out in the linked NYT piece (which I also recommend reading): many of the images and videos of child sex abuse are created because they can be shared. They can be shared because the creators have some confidence they can do so without getting caught. Once the content is discovered, the authorities also have a difficult time finding that child, who may still be in da…
Maybe I'm missing something, but it clearly states that the main issues saving children are a lack of enforcement availability (i.e. the 3 points mentioned in my comment) and the lack of timely cooperation of existing orders.
Then they talk about how 'some criminals' hide behind encryption.
So... we have a situation where many cases are reported but aren't followed up on. Yet we focus on getting more reporting by undermining the right of non criminals? Doesn't seem very logical to me.
The whole piece even undermines their own arguments. They mention the 'case of the Love Zone'... which was cracked by investigators finding clues the old fashioned way. Not drag net surveillance.
The article also places many issues that aren't tech related as tech problems. It says "Bing was said to regularly submit reports that lacked essential information, making investigations difficult"
Let's compare that line to offline: If I own a pizza parlor where pedo's hang out sometimes, and I find a picture of CP in a restroom and hand it in to the authorities or call them up, would you blame the Pizza Parlor for the lack of fingerprints on the pictures? Would you think it's ok then to make wearing gloves illegal? I mean, if people use gloves, pedos can use gloves and hide their fingerprints. Why not target gloves?
There is a real issue: Child Abuse. There are real solutions that are complex and extremely resource intensive. A report doesn't create a case. Focusing on tech and the lack of having MORE drag net surveillance seems absurd. This is coming from someone who grew up with abuse.
When I go to forums to discuss abuse (it helps me deal with what happened) almost everyone tells of times that the abuse was reported but not well investigated. In fact, I've known people who work in CPS and they almost universally say the system is broken. A child in my city was recently beat to death by his step dad... an CPS had been called on them multiple times.
We could be focusing on fixing that (you know, the things the people on the front line say are wrong). But no. Drag net surveillance is the thing we should focus on apparently (even though in the very article you mention it states we have more current reporting than we have resources to deal with it)
If they don't do E2E, users will abandon Facebook for platforms that do support it (and already are). And they aren't doing this to commit crimes, but to prevent advertisements from targeting every conversation they've ever had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some crimes can also be aided by whispered in-person conversation. Should we require all in-person conversation to be shouted near a government office? The societal default used to be that substantially all conversations were inaccessible to the government except through testimony. Encryption does nothing to change the availability of information through testimony. Previously, remote conspirators could collaborate th…
"The societal default used to be that substantially all conversations were inaccessible to the government except through testimony" Sure. Before the telegraph was invented. And even before that people used security measures, such as wax seals on letters to prevent tampering or at least have an ability to detect whether or not the message has been tampered with. You seem to think of messaging systems as if they were s…
It wasn't done that way. Envelopes were opened, and stamped "Opened by Censor". Material was cut out of letters. Censorship was not concealed at all.[1][2]
[1] https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/spring/m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epstein committed suicide. Did you miss the news coverage? And I’m not sure what the AG has to do with Epstein’s crimes. Did you get some people mixed up?
> And I’m not sure what the AG has to do with Epstein’s crimes. Did you get some people mixed up? The AG is a loyalist to and subordinate of the President, who was an associate of Epstein and who was also at one point accused of having had Epstein procure an underage girl for sex.
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeffrey-epstein-math-science-...
