Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 299 posts

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#111

Post by jacquesm »

concordDance wrote: post #104
jacquesm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but you can order physical abuse over the internet. I really don't want to bother you with how dark some of the darker stuff on the internet is but you're going to have to trust me on this without having to become more explicit or you risk losing your breakfast and then some. The digital can definitely be a pre-cursor and active element in the physical.

> No, but you can order physical abuse over the internet Is this actually taking place at a non-negligible scale?

Large enough that it bothers me. The Philippines is particularly problematic, the unofficial figures are that you're looking at roundabout 700K perps world-wide and an (obviously) smaller number of producers, how accurate those are I have no idea. Fortunately my exposure to this stuff has diminished drastically over the last couple of years because I stay a mile away from anything associated with webcams but when ww.com was still up it was a regular occurrence that we had to step in and shut down feeds and alert the authorities. And that was with a published policy of going after the originators and giving full cooperation to LE.

So yes, that is happening at a non-negligible scale. In fact it is happening at a scale that is incredible (to me, at least).

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#113

Post by jacquesm »

n0rbwah wrote: post #73
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child protection should be treated much more as a "local" than "global" issue. If it's "scale" they want, to really protect children, then local boots on the ground is still the best defense. Rather than talking about encryption, Interpol should be espousing the benefits of local investigation and intervention based on mandatory reporting. Removing child abuse content from the Internet is a digital issue. Protecting…

Yes, giving access to all communications worldwide to the cops still won't help them catch the abusers that don't record and post their abuse online. Which I assume is the majority of child abuse cases.

The bigger problem the police have is not that they don't have enough cases go after, it is that they already are overwhelmed by the cases they do have and the fact that those departments are typically understaffed and overworked. It takes a special kind of person to be exposed to this crap on a daily basis and still be able to function, employee turnover is - not surprisingly - high and the effectiveness is relatively low because of the overwhelming caseload.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#114

Post by Freak_NL »

jacquesm wrote: post #103
Freak_NL wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but then we're not talking about the vast majority of digital transgressions are we? That is, the simple (re)distribution of child pornography — ghastly enough as that is — not the few who actively seek out and order new abusive material from those who actually produce the stuff. This debate is about proportionality. How many children can live a marginally better live by giving up strong encryption and privacy…

I'm not at all trying to pull this into the 'think of the children' domain, I'm just pointing out that what you think is going on is probably not nearly as bad as what is really going on. It goes a lot further than just child pornography, think snuff movies involving children made to order and other 'creative' idiocy. I'm all for people having access to encryption, I'm also for stamping out these criminals. The two a…

I have no doubts that whatever depravity a child can be submitted to that I can think up has or will have happened, and worse. There is certainly no god that prevents it, there is only us humans, and there are a handful of very sick individuals among the seven billion — that's just a statistical surety.

> The two are not mutually exclusive.

There we agree. But politicians worldwide do keep turning this into a 'think-of-the-children' fight. Only this month the Dutch minister of justice and security came up with exactly that argument for forcing Facebook to include a backdoor in WhatsApp — a plea indubitably neatly prompted by his colleagues in the US (cf. attorney general Barr's position on this topic).

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#115

Post by clarry »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #86
protomyth wrote: post #17

Encryption is math, and not even hard math at that. You have as much chance of stopping evil people from using encryption as you have of stopping them from doing multiplication. Make every politician who opposes encryption feel like an idiot for thinking they can stop people from adding and multiplying.

From the article: "Tech companies should include mechanisms in the design of their encrypted products and services whereby governments, acting with appropriate legal authority, can obtain access to data in a readable and useable format" They would target companies, not math or protocols.

If that means commercial software developed by tech companies will be abandoned for good, I'm all for it. Come come, open source revolution.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#116

Post by AdrianB1 »

ars wrote: post #19

I had an idea that a decent compromise is to limit keystrength, but not have any kind of backdoor. This way the vast majority of communication is protected, and the government can't just spy en mass. But, if there was some specific target they could throw a lot of computing resources at it. But they would need to know in advance who to target, they couldn't just have a wide dragnet. Thoughts?

There is no need for a compromise - why do that? I have no reason to give up on any of my freedoms, including the ones that I don't care about, I don't use or can be used to do bad things. I am not willing to give up anything, that is a slippery slope, so there is no compromise to do.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#117

Post by Gatsky »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #109
Gatsky wrote: post #29

Lots of criticism here, fair enough, it’s very worrying to give non-transparent institutions this kind of power, not to mention the technical feasibility. But... what should be done about child pornography, then? The ability to disseminate it with impunity is a problem we can’t just pretend doesn’t exist. Using online platforms pedophiles can monetize and go full time professional in countries where children are easi…

You are manipulating: if there is a problem and the solution that is proposed is excessive, rejecting the proposed solutions does not move the burden of finding a solutions on the people rejecting it. For example, I propose to stop everyone from breathing, it will stop pedophiles; if you don't agree, you have to provide a solution for pedophilia. Not a logically sound argument, is it?

I’m genuinely interested if anyone else feels uneasy about just leaving things the way they are, and if they have any thoughts about what could be done instead of compromising cryptographic integrity. Sorry if that came across as an attempt at manipulation, not my intention at all.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#118

Post by AdrianB1 »

scotty79 wrote: post #102
AdrianB1 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you love that capability, good for you. But leave it out for the others, live and let live.

Sure. I wouldn't mandate it. There would be no incentive to mandate it, when the owner remains in legal, practical control all the time, even in court. I think most of us would still use it. To record our lives so you can review or share the good parts or prove something you said, heard or seen. It's already happening with phones (they just don't record all the time but that's mostly to technical limitations) and I t…

Then it is off-topic for the current discussion, is it? I thought you are making an argument, but it is just a distraction.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#119

Post by jstanley »

noobermin wrote: post #9
RHSeeger wrote: post #5

> The international police organization Interpol plans to condemn the spread of strong encryption in a statement Monday saying it protects child sex predators, three people briefed on the matter told Reuters. Let me fix that for you > it protects nearly every single person on the planet.

This is close to saying child rapists rape children behind closed doors so you shouldn't have locks, ignoring that well locked doors benefit everyone who has a house. It's disingenuous.

He's saying that encryption protects every single person.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#120

Post by [deleted] »

snowwrestler wrote: post #8

This is a good time to remember that police forces work for governments and not the other way around. Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they had full-text search access to all conversations and content, worldwide. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea. They’re asking for something to make their job easier... can’t blame them for trying, and of course who doesn’t want to catch people who h…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN