541–550 of 592 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? Childhood is a rather modern concept and child labour exploitation peaked just a few centuries ago during the Industrial Revolution. What historical events and periods are you referring to in the past millenia?
corrupting the youth was one of the charges against Socrates made by essentially political opponents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how so many people instantly associated that argument with gun control :)
Maybe because guns harm more children than Facebook?
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if data could be generated that shows cyber bullying on Facebook results in more child suicides than children murdered in school shootings per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WFIW I didn't advocate backdooring either, I'm just asking how we, as technologists, balance what I think are reasonable and compelling goals: protect user data, and protect children. One reasonable answer is that FB/Google/etc. should donate or donate more (Google is called out as donating already) to these organizations. I think another reasonable answer is that technologists donate our time, perhaps as 20% project…
I did read the article, though I think I may now see your point: this technology has greatly enabled abusers, perhaps more than it has helped finders-and-punishers-of-abusers. Your question is a good one: "how we, as technologists, balance what I think are reasonable and compelling goals: protect user data, and protect children."
One is our job that we are directly and morally responsible for (like a civil engineer being responsible for having a bridge not collapse at a load of >2 cars), the other is not. Call me callous, call me cold, but that is not explicitly up to us, we can't be under the delusion that we are the one key to everything and anything. It wouldn't make sense to have a "quick-release" button forcibly installed on all bridges that would cause an instant collapse if triggered "because countless children that are victims of human trafficking are taken over bridges everyday."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's a hard sell. Just picture a politician on live television having to choose between having this cute little child being raped for years before they commit suicide (letting the perpetrators off the hook), or ramp up the surveillance a bit. Picture them choosing the rape. But the argument doesn't even make sense. It makes the horrible assumption that pedophiles will continue using a service they know to be insecur…
That's literally a provably false assumption. The second they realize it's insecure (which will take exactly one raid), they'll switch to something else. It is trivial to prove that the second a criminal realizes a given communication mechanism is insecure they do not stop using it if it is convenient. Has every criminal in the world stopped using the phone after the first phone was ever tapped? And ALL of the above…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's quite a stretch for a title ambiguity: attorney general or soft drink? Submitted title was "AG Barr Will Ask Zuckerberg To Halt Plans For End-To-End Encryption".
I mean, I doubt that many UK natives know the name of the US Attorney General off the top of their heads. It seems like a reasonable mixup to me.
(On another note, it's amazing how easy it is for a comment can sound like a bit of a putdown inadvertently. Even after years of practice trying to skirt around such misinterpretations. Tone of voice and body language must be the greater part of how we avoid this in person.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
corrupting the youth was one of the charges against Socrates made by essentially political opponents.
Which, incidentally, he was undoubtedly guilty of. By putting all sorts of notions into their heads.
so actually fairly analogous!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's quite a stretch for a title ambiguity: attorney general or soft drink? Submitted title was "AG Barr Will Ask Zuckerberg To Halt Plans For End-To-End Encryption".
A stretch if you have the context of a US reader but imagine if the chief medic in the UK were called Dr Pepper and, well, the rest writes itself :)
By 'stretch' I just mean that there's quite a distance between an attorney general and a soft drink. Usually the things that get conflated are not so incongruous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to just call it a substantiated theory at this point.
It's not substantiated, it's speculation. There's still a possibility it was an actual, non-coerced suicide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not that simple. Two potential unintended consequences of this no-encryption rule come to mind that might actually not just not help, but in fact make it worse for the victims. 1. They said that FB captures 99% of those illegal activities by themselves. What makes us think that government will be able to capture that last 1% on their own? 2. Encryption gets removed, potential perpetrators move to another platfo…
Facebook relies on the fact that most Facebook messages are not end-to-end encrypted to detect illegal activity. Forget the last 1% – how would Facebook continue to detect the 99% without access to decrypted message contents?
I spent less than a minute thinking about this, but there are probably tons of other strategies they can employ. People familiar with the domain, I would actually love to hear your takes on this, as the topic is fairly fascinating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, for marijuana. But not all substances are the same. If you've ever gone through the hell of having a family member or close friend being addicted to heroin or coke or other physically-addictive "hard" drugs, you'll see that they're not in the same risk category at all.
But then you also had the whole "coke vs crack" thing in the 1980s - where crack was a predominantly used drug by ethnic minorities, and cocaine was more likely to be used by "high rollers" who could afford it - usually white and rich, yuppies, etc. Wall Street types and the like. But rarely did you see or hear about any of those people landing in jail or prison for long periods. If you heard anything it was more or…