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

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

simplex.chat

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

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

#31

Post by lynx23 »

lukan wrote: post #20
abc123abc123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yay, Neighborhood Watch! Wannabie police harrassing citizens, thats just what we all need!

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

#32

Post by xzjis »

teekert wrote: post #6

I find the argument a bit weak because client side scanning is not the same as creating a central store for all send images. I do indeed find it very concerning that flagged content will eventually be looked at by a human, and said human may be a criminal, or said human and her computers will indeed be the target of hackers looking to extort. Would be nice if this scenario would first play out for a politician that h…

> Would be nice if this scenario would first play out for a politician that helped establish Chat Control.

Unfortunately French politicians already thought about it, and politicians will be exempted from Chat Control.

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

#33

Post by ben_w »

abofh wrote: post #21
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 is 100% the parents responsibility to have an active enough role in their Child's life to know who they're interacting with and to provide appropriate supervision. If your child is getting addicted to something, it's because they've been enabled, perhaps through their friends devices or what have you. You cannot push the burden of being a responsible parent on people who do not wish to be your childrens parent. So…

The entire point of being a teenager is to get away from your parents and find new peer groups.

Unfortunately, what we evolved for is 160 people in a village with a peer group of about a dozen within a few years of us, not even a school with hundreds to thousands, let alone the internet with two people for every heartbeat in a human lifetime of which 440 million (~= the population of the EU) is within a few years of us.

And given the power imbalance between manipulative corporations and normal people is sufficient for the former to convince the latter to watch adverts while conversing with their friends — the entirety of Facebook's business model — it's not even clear to me that the internet in its current state is a good thing for adults either: to many of these companies, even the ones that are legal rather than criminal scams, we are the trees upon which money grows.

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

#34

Post by newswasboring »

vaylian wrote: post #16
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 ne…

> 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.

I'm not sure this is even possible. I understand children are smart but I don't think they are this smart. We can educate children to be cautious but i don't think we should expect them not to get out witted by an adult.

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

#35

Post by baq »

derefr wrote: post #11
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.

A lot of parents are at the very least extremely unaware of what their children are doing on the internet.

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

#36

Post by ryan-c »

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…

> LGBTQ+ rights? Think of the children.

A lot of people prefer dead kids to queer kids, unfortunately.

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

#37

Post by vaylian »

newswasboring wrote: post #34
vaylian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ne…

> 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. I'm not sure this is even possible. I understand children are smart but I don't think they are this smart. We can educate children to be cautious but i don't think we should expect them not to get out witted by an adult.

Children are smart enough to understand that no stranger except for a doctor should request to see their private parts. Children are smart enough to learn that they should not respond to sharing names, ages and locations when asked about it on the internet.

Also: Children are a lot smarter than AI, which is allegedly the super-magical protection against child grooming.

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

#38

Post by derefr »

Arainach wrote: post #29
derefr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Putting aside that children as a group are brilliant and constantly jailbreaking every kind of device management they are subjected to, the vast majority of parents aren't technical enough to understand this problem much less set themselves up as "admins" and the vast majority of those who are technical enough to understand do not have the time. They're already trying to ensure their children are fed, educated, socia…

Who said anything about a technical problem? Being an “admin on their phone” just means knowing their PIN code and passwords and grabbing their phone whenever you want. No technical know-how required.

Also, I object to this:

> They're already trying to ensure their children are fed, educated, socialized, emotionally supported, and so on.

In 2024, all of the above except “fed” occur at least partially over the Internet. Ignoring your child’s time spent online is like being the oblivious parents in an urban fantasy story who don’t realize their kids are slipping off to have adventures in the fae realm every night.

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

#39

Post by abofh »

ben_w wrote: post #33
abofh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is 100% the parents responsibility to have an active enough role in their Child's life to know who they're interacting with and to provide appropriate supervision. If your child is getting addicted to something, it's because they've been enabled, perhaps through their friends devices or what have you. You cannot push the burden of being a responsible parent on people who do not wish to be your childrens parent. So…

The entire point of being a teenager is to get away from your parents and find new peer groups. Unfortunately, what we evolved for is 160 people in a village with a peer group of about a dozen within a few years of us, not even a school with hundreds to thousands, let alone the internet with two people for every heartbeat in a human lifetime of which 440 million (~= the population of the EU) is within a few years of…

Once we're at teenagers, then it's still - did you raise them to be aware of the world around them? Did you give them the tools to evaluate safe and unsafe online activity?

A kid doesn't accidentally end up addicted heroin unless they have exposure to heroin. Child grooming predates encryption and the internet and relied primarily on trusted people convincing children not to talk.

No amount of decrypted internet traffic will protect your children from unsupervised in-person access by strangers - worrying about what they do online as a black box of whataboutism -- and again, it's the parents, not society as a whole who has that responsibility.

Are there evil people? Yes. Are there corporations that are interested in you being addicted to their products (Oxy, Alcohol, Nicotine, Meta) -- yes.

Do you need the right to inspect what I send to my wife to protect your children? No.

I'm sorry that teenagers are hard, they always have been - that's a hard part about parenting. The hardest part though is that you raised them to make their own choices - and this is the final exam -- did your kids make good choices. You don't get to put that responsibility on anyone else, you raised them, you gave them the tools - and at some point, they will make a choice without you. If you believe the only way for them to make a good choice is to be able to surveil every aspect of their lives, then I hate to tell you what will happen when they stop being children.

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

#40

Post by lukan »

lynx23 wrote: post #31
lukan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Yay, Neighborhood Watch! Wannabie police harrassing citizens, thats just what we all need!

Well, if a community is working well and everyone knows and supports each other, then there is no need for police. The crazy ones simply get early help. But the way things develope, neighborhood watches will likely be more and more common. (pedos are just one motivator)
Post reply on HN