Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption • Hacker News Board

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#11

Post by derefr » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:36 AM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I'm happy to have a discussion about this, but I don't buy that end-to-end encryption will, overall, increase children's safety. I'm happy to see strong evidence one way of the other, but this article is very one-sided. Child grooming on the internet is a huge problem, and I suspect (again, happy to see evidence against it) it's better to allow scanning of children's communications, rather than ensuring their communi…

Why does scanning of children's communications need to involve non-E2E-encrypted communication? The parents can just be the admins of their children's devices and tell those devices to capture and report communications before they're encrypted.

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#12

Post by TrackerFF » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:38 AM UTC

Not related to encryption, but "child safety" seems to be a really popular subject for ushering in all kinds of overreaching policies.

Encrypted communications? Think of the children.

Legalizing cannabis? Think of the children.

LGBTQ+ rights? Think of the children.

Non-western immigrants? Think of the children.

Non-western social media becoming too popular? Think of the children.

etc.

Sorry if this was political, but every time I see someone use "Think of the children" as their main argument, I can't help but to think there's some ulterior motives, and kids (who can't voice their opinion, or won't be heard / taken seriously if they could) are just being used as pawns - because who would want to argue against the safety of kids?

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#13

Post by poincaredisk » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:40 AM UTC

bboygravity wrote: post #5

egberts1 wrote: post #3

You cannot say flat-out say that E2E alone must be maintained, you must make it harder for others to reach you, thru something done in-person/screen-only QR-code, Bluetooth'd contact vCard, ..., something that prevents drive-by spammers/perps/malicious actors from randomly attaching to an account. The key thing is to make distribution of account name harder: 1. Send 256-char hash of your account 2. They tag your hash…

How do you know what's running on Signal's server? Sidenote: Signal is based in the USA. They do not have the benefit of the doubt.

You and GP bring signal into this, but TFA is hosted on simplex.chat blog - the communicator famous for not having user accounts at all, so it trivially fixed the problem GP mentioned.

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#14

Post by abc123abc123 » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:41 AM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I'm happy to have a discussion about this, but I don't buy that end-to-end encryption will, overall, increase children's safety. I'm happy to see strong evidence one way of the other, but this article is very one-sided. Child grooming on the internet is a huge problem, and I suspect (again, happy to see evidence against it) it's better to allow scanning of children's communications, rather than ensuring their communi…

Do you think pedos don't read the news? Of course, if privacy is dismantled by law, they will move to other platforms. They are not stupid.

The ones who suffer will be dissidents, political opponents, people who do victimless crimes, regular people where the scanners scanned wrong etc.

All it would take is for one socialist or fascist to come into power, and our dear politicians will have created the perfect platform for imprisoning dissidents.

This discussion is short sighted, naive, and so forgetful of history and the benefits of privacy that I really truly have come to believe that politicians at large are the retards they appear to be.

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#15

Post by abc123abc123 » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:42 AM UTC

TrackerFF wrote: post #12

Not related to encryption, but "child safety" seems to be a really popular subject for ushering in all kinds of overreaching policies. Encrypted communications? Think of the children. Legalizing cannabis? Think of the children. LGBTQ+ rights? Think of the children. Non-western immigrants? Think of the children. Non-western social media becoming too popular? Think of the children. etc. Sorry if this was political, but…

Nothing new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

We quickly forget our history.

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#16

Post by vaylian » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:45 AM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I'm happy to have a discussion about this, but I don't buy that end-to-end encryption will, overall, increase children's safety. I'm happy to see strong evidence one way of the other, but this article is very one-sided. Child grooming on the internet is a huge problem, and I suspect (again, happy to see evidence against it) it's better to allow scanning of children's communications, rather than ensuring their communi…

> it's better to allow scanning of children's communications, rather than ensuring their communication with whoever they are talking to is end-to-end encrypted.

This is not purely a technical matter. Children and adolescents want confidential communication just like older people. You might argue, that it is in the best interest of minors to have someone/something look at their private communication to intervene if necessary, but there are much better and more versatile ways to protect the children: Educate them and their parents. Children need to learn how to manage trust with strangers in the offline and online world anyway and the internet doesn't change that. In fact, sexual abuse usually has an offline component to it that you can only effectively protect against by educating children.

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#17

Post by Taniwha » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:45 AM UTC

Really - today in NZ we have a political stoush where a serving politician has been chatting with young teenagers on snapchat - while there are lots of places where perfect security is important, with predatory adults around perhaps it's not the solution for protecting kids

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#18

Post by wadim » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:46 AM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I'm happy to have a discussion about this, but I don't buy that end-to-end encryption will, overall, increase children's safety. I'm happy to see strong evidence one way of the other, but this article is very one-sided. Child grooming on the internet is a huge problem, and I suspect (again, happy to see evidence against it) it's better to allow scanning of children's communications, rather than ensuring their communi…

Didn't we have quite a few scandals involving LE saving and sharing media as well? Doesn't make it much better, you'll just have a bigger pool of people looking at the unencrypted chats.

I think a better solution would be filters which run only locally and can block problematic messages, as well as alarm platform provider/LE/parents. E2E still works, but you have some safety as well.

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#19

Post by concordDance » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:50 AM UTC

TrackerFF wrote: post #12

Not related to encryption, but "child safety" seems to be a really popular subject for ushering in all kinds of overreaching policies. Encrypted communications? Think of the children. Legalizing cannabis? Think of the children. LGBTQ+ rights? Think of the children. Non-western immigrants? Think of the children. Non-western social media becoming too popular? Think of the children. etc. Sorry if this was political, but…

Amusingly, for every single political example you gave, I've heard "think of the children" from both directions.

Re: Protecting Children's Safety Requires End-to-End Encryption

#20

Post by lukan » Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 7:52 AM UTC

abc123abc123 wrote: post #14

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I'm happy to have a discussion about this, but I don't buy that end-to-end encryption will, overall, increase children's safety. I'm happy to see strong evidence one way of the other, but this article is very one-sided. Child grooming on the internet is a huge problem, and I suspect (again, happy to see evidence against it) it's better to allow scanning of children's communications, rather than ensuring their communi…

Do you think pedos don't read the news? Of course, if privacy is dismantled by law, they will move to other platforms. They are not stupid. The ones who suffer will be dissidents, political opponents, people who do victimless crimes, regular people where the scanners scanned wrong etc. All it would take is for one socialist or fascist to come into power, and our dear politicians will have created the perfect platform…

"They are not stupid."

Some are, those are caught.

But those who are not, learned to be very sneaky. They have to hide their dark side ALL the time. That is a pretty intense training in terms of operational security.

And the solution to this is probably not technical, but social. People could get to know their neighbors more.

My experience with those guys is, it still shows, if you pay attention. But if you are sure your neighbor is not a pedo, then it is one more person you can trust to keep a lookout for the dangerous types. You know, classic community building stuff.