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

281–290 of 299 posts

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#281

Post by jacquesm »

concordDance wrote: post #275
jacquesm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 700K perps world-wide and an (obviously) smaller number of producers The figures I'd want are not consumers or producers but numbers of children. A child being abused 1000 times is obviously awful but its not as bad as 1000 being abused once.

> A child being abused 1000 times is obviously awful but its not as bad as 1000 being abused once.

Obvious to you. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that children are not mathematical objects. It is also the sort of reasoning that ultimately leads to the rest of society deciding that us tech people are incapable of setting things up in such a way that abuse potential is minimized. Then you get reactive stuff like this article.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#282

Post by Faark »

schwede wrote: post #202
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #177

You know what else protects criminals? Walls. Seriously, wouldn't it all be much easier if the police could just look into your home from the outside without those pesky walls around it? This constant war on encryption is getting so absurd lately. The kind of people who are pushing this should just be fired if not thrown into prison. It's just a blatant attack against human rights and the public should finally start…

What about warrants? The police can get a warrant to look inside your walls. You can’t do that with encryption.

> You can’t do that with encryption.

Isn't the most effective way to get around encryption to compromise the endpoint? Obviously not after the fact, but I doubt a highly motivated and well funded police force would find ways to get eg video of a password being entered inside the house of nearly any selected criminal.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#283

Post by jacquesm »

jstarfish wrote: post #269
jacquesm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, typically it is a bunch of coincidences that allows these cases to be solved. It's incredible the scale at which they operated and how long they got away with it.

The problem is that perpetrators are not as stereotypical as people assume-- it's not the registered offender down the street, it's not the creepy guy in aviators living out of the panel van. "To Catch A Predator" really fucked up the public's perception of abuse perpetrators. It's almost always the victim's parent/caretaker or other close relation-- but they always "seem totally normal" so nobody wants to believe it…

I wish you all the strength in the world.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#284

Post by prirun »

IMO, the reason they always use the child abuse excuse for encryption backdoors is evident in this thread discussion.

Nearly all people are against child abuse / porn. But if a person says "I'm not willing to give up secure encryption worldwide just because it is used for child abuse / porn", a pile of people will say "It's not acceptable for one child to be abused!"

Of course it's not acceptable. But should everyone in the entire world lose their privacy, even if it eliminated all child abuse, which obviously it won't?

To me, these encryption backdoor ideas are rarely about law enforcement. They are about people in power wanting to maintain and extend their power.

Criminals who want to use unbreakable encryption will always have easy access to it because encryption is an easy technology that anyone can use. Governments can make whatever laws they want, but it will mainly affect law-abiding citizens. The criminals will just ignore them, as always.

The people pushing this backdoor encryption agenda are not stupid. They know that criminals will ignore these new backdoor rules, which is why I believe it is really about power, not child porn.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#285

Post by BLKNSLVR »

jacquesm wrote: post #281
concordDance wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 700K perps world-wide and an (obviously) smaller number of producers The figures I'd want are not consumers or producers but numbers of children. A child being abused 1000 times is obviously awful but its not as bad as 1000 being abused once.

> A child being abused 1000 times is obviously awful but its not as bad as 1000 being abused once. Obvious to you. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that children are not mathematical objects. It is also the sort of reasoning that ultimately leads to the rest of society deciding that us tech people are incapable of setting things up in such a way that abuse potential is minimized. Then you get reactive stuff…

Thanks for your continued replies and balanced counterpoints to various statements (including my own).

Maybe I've gone the wrong direction, but I'm almost convinced now that it may actually be worse to make public statements linking encryption to child abuse because it potentially paints backdoors as a solution in the minds of the non-technical folks, and potentially makes child abuse closer to appearing to be a "solved problem" and distracts further from progress towards a real solution.

I'm aware now (thanks to you and some others who have horrid coalface experience) that the digital realm is indeed more of a problem than I'd considered. I can't bring myself to accept, however, that mandated encryption backdoors are worth the attention they're being given by law enforcement for the purposes they're trying to align it with.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#286

Post by goblin89 »

boomlinde wrote: post #130
goblin89 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In your example, law enforcement can force itself into the conversation in multiple ways (without compromising your counterpart), including listening devices or a break-in.

Most real-life analogies to encryption are not good enough. A smart layperson can easily spot issues with the “if crime happens in private, you shouldn't ban privacy” type of argument.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#287

Post by croon »

schwede wrote: post #202
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #177

You know what else protects criminals? Walls. Seriously, wouldn't it all be much easier if the police could just look into your home from the outside without those pesky walls around it? This constant war on encryption is getting so absurd lately. The kind of people who are pushing this should just be fired if not thrown into prison. It's just a blatant attack against human rights and the public should finally start…

What about warrants? The police can get a warrant to look inside your walls. You can’t do that with encryption.

Encryption backdoors mean they can look at your data without your knowing. This is not equivalent to warrants.

What they however can do is have a warrant to access your house, where some of your data might live, or potentially decryption keys. And they could potentially motivate you to reveal your keys.

All of this is possible currently without encryption backdoors.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#288

Post by [deleted] »

matz1 wrote: post #227
Mirioron wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murder itself is wrong and causes harm to society. Using encryption by itself is not wrong and does not cause harm to society.

Right or wrong is relative. Sure for you encryption by itself is not wrong, but not for Interpol. The same argument is used by Interpol, encryption cause harm for society, at least from their perspective.

[deleted]

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#290

Post by taway2436553 »

bboygravity wrote: post #236
Fjolsvith wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mean literally losing a hand or an eye as a yellow vest? Or something like that? Nah. Meh, thanks. Not the best option I would say. Tell that to the Hong Kong protesters.

No need to go all the way to Hong Kong for examples. There's been plenty of violence by security forces with 100's of heavily wounded and a few deaths in the yellow vest protests in France recently. Here's a partial list up until January this year: https://www.liberation.fr/apps/2019/01/la-carte-des-gilets-j... We're talking people losing their hand(s), eye(s) or dying here. Same for the Barcelona protests (non yello…

Losing a hand or eye in exchange for personal freedom is much better than staying (relatively) healthy for life in prison or until executed.

Individual rights were never won or kept by lying down.

Post reply on HN