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

121–130 of 299 posts

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#121

Post by bboygravity »

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…

> But it’s not their responsibility to account for negative side effects. That’s our responsibility, as citizens who are in charge of our governments.

Wait, what? We have a saying in the actions and decisions of our governments (context: EU and US)?

No we don't. We don't live in direct democracies. If Interpol or any police force wants to ban encryption and if that benefits who ever is in government, then that ban will come. Thus: that ban will come. (Western) governments have been eyeing bans and bypasses of encryption for decades. This is nothing new. What we as citizens think of that is completely irrelevant. Unless the majority of the population would really care about encryption and it would influence the 4-yearly vote-thing (elections). Which is not the case.

Every Western country has had headlines in their news papers in the past months about their politicians -all of a sudden and all at the same time- wanting to pass laws to allow them to bypass encryption (pressured by the US?). Just in case it would influence the 4-yearly voting thing. The synchronized timing of the publications to me is shocking but not really surprising anymore. Manufacturing consent.

the online kiddy porn and terrorism is really getting out of hand like right about now. Never been worse. Let's all ban encryption quickly and save the world from all child abuse

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#122

Post by hellotomyrars »

lolc wrote: post #68
roenxi wrote: post #52

The issue here is that you can't stop people from using encryption; they'll just start using a combination of encryption and steganography for example. It isn't like we are dealing with people who are afraid to break the law.

I don't follow this argument. Compromising commonly used encryption means less people will use hard encryption. That goes for criminals too. They won't all just switch to a hardened scheme. Some will switch, some will go with the compromised version, and some might even stop the criminal things they are doing for fear of detection. The question is whether this means it's worth compromising encryption.

I can’t imagine that a significant number of criminals who are involved in sexual exploitation of children would suddenly be unmasked due to any government imposed rules about encryption. At best you’d have a small wave of folks caught off guard.

The "question” is a false premise. You can’t stop people form using encryption. The people who are strongly motivated to use it to cover their criminal activity (the more heinous the more motivated they’re likely to be) are still going to. The knock-on effect is that you give the police and governments the keys to the kingdom against people who are probably not committing heinous crimes.

The abuse potential increases with little to nothing gained for the rule of law and the common person.

People have been committing crime and hiding them (the key component to not getting caught it turns out) since humans decided to implement laws. Weakening encryption isn’t going to stop that and it’s a hollow argument.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#123

Post by jacquesm »

Freak_NL wrote: post #114
jacquesm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> and there are a handful of very sick individuals among the seven billion

This is where you're wrong. Child porn is a substantial market, estimated to be in the billions of $ per year. It's a disproportionate amount compared to 'regular' porn because of the criminal element and the risks involved, just like illegal drugs are far more expensive than legal ones (in most parts of the world, anyway).

Politicians abusing this to push their own agenda's are effectively also abusing these children... it's a fucked up world, that's for sure.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#124

Post by zozbot234 »

jacquesm wrote: post #123
Freak_NL wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> and there are a handful of very sick individuals among the seven billion This is where you're wrong. Child porn is a substantial market, estimated to be in the billions of $ per year. It's a disproportionate amount compared to 'regular' porn because of the criminal element and the risks involved, just like illegal drugs are far more expensive than legal ones (in most parts of the world, anyway). Politicians abusing…

Billions of dollars per year? On a world basis, that's quite insubstantial.

And child abuse has always been around, unfortunately. Much of it probably goes unrecorded. Indeed, we only became aware of how bad the problem really was in the 1980s, due to the very fact that media of it was now being created and exchanged.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#125

Post by clarry »

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…

IMO trying to attack dissemination of CP is like trying to intercept bullets midair (perhaps even harder). There are countless ways to smuggle porn, just as there are countless ways to smuggle drugs. Drugs are harder, and yet they still can't prevent it.

Maybe it's time to think of an alternative approach.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#126

Post by glangdale »

neiman wrote: post #56

So in the same time they should condemn democracy and freedom, as they're having exactly the same effect. It is much easier for police in authoritarian countries to prevent crimes and find perpetrators. But if they don't condemn democracy and freedom, they should also not condemn encryption. The ability to communicate privately, or saying things outside the consensus anonymously, is an important tool for citizens to…

"It is much easier for police in authoritarian countries to prevent crimes and find perpetrators."

Is this actually true? This sounds like one of those bits of received wisdom (like the trains supposedly running on time under Mussolini) that turns out to be bogus. I'm not sure that the expansion of police powers under authoritarian regimes has anything to do with making them more efficient at preventing or solving crimes that are crimes in all regimes (e.g. murder, rape, etc). I would at least need to see some evidence that clearance rates are better in authoritarian countries.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#127

Post by boomlinde »

Of course, if a child predator really wants to conceal their communication and it's not built into the chat service, they can do so using, say, PGP and some sort of steganography.

On the other hand, that law enforcement agencies can catch criminals today using e.g. Messenger means that there are criminals that are not careful or savvy enough to do so.

IMO end-to-end encrypted chat should be regarded as private eye-to-eye conversation. It's understandably convenient for law enforcement if it isn't. In the end, that a criminal can say something incriminating to another in private is not a new problem.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#129

Post by jacquesm »

zozbot234 wrote: post #124
jacquesm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and there are a handful of very sick individuals among the seven billion This is where you're wrong. Child porn is a substantial market, estimated to be in the billions of $ per year. It's a disproportionate amount compared to 'regular' porn because of the criminal element and the risks involved, just like illegal drugs are far more expensive than legal ones (in most parts of the world, anyway). Politicians abusing…

Billions of dollars per year? On a world basis, that's quite insubstantial. And child abuse has always been around, unfortunately. Much of it probably goes unrecorded. Indeed, we only became aware of how bad the problem really was in the 1980s, due to the very fact that media of it was now being created and exchanged.

I aspire to one day reach your level of cynicism but for now I will have to disagree with you that that is insubstantial, even on a world basis. Especially so because it is concentrated in only a very few countries where children have a very high chance of being exploited in this way.

Have a read.

https://www.rappler.com/nation/191219-philippines-top-global...

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#130

Post by boomlinde »

goblin89 wrote: post #21
noobermin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I support the sentiment that privacy is important, comparing encryption to locks in this ghastly context is self-defeating. Recall that there were more than one instance where critical evidence against a wealthy person, required for the prosecution to make a compelling case in court, was obtained by force with a police raid. At least one such instance happened in the US in 2019 and was well-publicized. Now imag…

> It is possible to identify with the argument that everyone should have access to such an impenetrable lock. However, it’d be really hard to argue that widespread access to it wouldn’t create a radically new situation.

With regards to communication, we already have that impenetrable lock built in. I can say something incriminating to someone else in private, and the only way law enforcement will ever know what is if either party involved in the private conversation agrees to divulge it. Traditionally, the means for law enforcement to address this is to be part of the conversation.

Post reply on HN