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

61–70 of 84 posts

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

#61

Post by kaba0 »

ben_w wrote: post #53
kaba0 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any measure? ChatGPT still can’t solve a sudoku, let alone do any form of reasoning. It’s more of a search engine than “intelligence”, while humans obviously can reason and solve novel tasks.

> ChatGPT still can’t solve a sudoku, Now you've got me wondering, if there's even an appropriate test set to find out. When I do a sudoku, it's either printed and then I don't know if I made a mistake until the very end; or it's on a computer which tells me about mistakes as soon as I make them. I do know I make mistakes when doing them, but I don't know how often — more or less frequently than ChatGPT. (Also, at le…

I have never seen an example where it didn’t basically just rehash some answer already found in its training data. Where it excels is language tasks, and retrieving knowledge can be looked at as a language task - it has some internal representation of some textual form of the repeating parts of its training data set, and it can translate it into an answer appropriate for a question.

It fundamentally can’t come up with a novel reply, unlike a human. It breaks spectacularly the instant you go off its training set, which is very easy to notice if you ask it about a topic you are knowledgeable about.

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

#62

Post by squigz »

concordDance wrote: post #19
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.

Can you elaborate? Can't say I've ever heard someone say we should legalize cannabis so the kids can smoke it too.

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

#63

Post by thelibertines »

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…

I hear you, but children aren't raised by parents alone.

They are also raised by society and environment. It has to go hand in hand.

Implementing structures in communications and tech that evolve around actual real-life material conditions and challenges, is what will make any innovation useful.

Society can no longer afford to separate well-being and technology as two separate concerns for the long run. It's either for humans and what their realities really look like, or it's for nothing, imo.

Whether the above is really a great step, I can't say, tho.

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

#64

Post by CJefferson »

vaylian wrote: post #56
CJefferson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it. That happens all the time to children, they are groomed both offline and online. It's a real problem, and it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children.

> I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it. That is valuable feedback. Thank you. I'll try to improve my choice of words. > it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children. Agree. We need better education, which does not require smarter children. And to achieve a better education, w…

You are right, while we might disagree one some things (do children need end-to-end encryption), I do, I think, all want to figure out how to make sure all children end up happy and safe, and I don't think we know the best way to achieve that.

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

#65

Post by CJefferson »

ugly1kenowbi wrote: post #58
CJefferson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it. That happens all the time to children, they are groomed both offline and online. It's a real problem, and it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children.

I'm guessing this mismatch is a question of differing life views/philosophies; as a general rule, for me, it is absolutely my responsibility as a parent to educate my daughter to make sure she can evaluate risk "properly" and then, it is on her* to decide how to manage that, always knowing that are people out there that will attempt to harm you. This clearly means that we sometimes will get it wrong but, in my mind,…

Looking at an extreme case, do you think it would be reasonable to make guns available to all children, at all ages, and trust children and parents to ensure that everyone is safe?

If not (and I'm assuming not, let me know if you do think that's reasonable!), there is some space for laws which restrict children, in return for increasing their safety -- we just have to discuss where that line should be.

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

#66

Post by gambiting »

squigz wrote: post #60
CJefferson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways we don't give children the same rights as adults. They might want confidential communication, but I'm not sure they should have it. Why are you so sure that it is better and more versatile to educate them and their parents? We've been educating children, and parents, basically forever (and I've done a lot of educating of children myself). While they are young and still learning, I really believe t…

> They might want confidential communication, but I'm not sure they should have it. Why not? Assuming you're using a Western metric of what a child is, why does a 17 year old not have the right to private communication, but an 18 year old does? Furthermore, why do you think corporations are going to be like "Oh, this person is 18 now. We're going to respect their privacy now!"?

Well, for the exact same reason why in many western countries we decide that 17 year olds are not capable of consenting to sex, but 18 year olds are, same with driving a car, drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes - the cut off is somewhat arbitrary but there has to be one. If it's not 18 then what other age is appropriate? Or do you believe that a child of any age should have access to completely confidential communication outside of a medical setting?

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

#67

Post by squigz »

gambiting wrote: post #66
squigz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They might want confidential communication, but I'm not sure they should have it. Why not? Assuming you're using a Western metric of what a child is, why does a 17 year old not have the right to private communication, but an 18 year old does? Furthermore, why do you think corporations are going to be like "Oh, this person is 18 now. We're going to respect their privacy now!"?

Well, for the exact same reason why in many western countries we decide that 17 year olds are not capable of consenting to sex, but 18 year olds are, same with driving a car, drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes - the cut off is somewhat arbitrary but there has to be one. If it's not 18 then what other age is appropriate? Or do you believe that a child of any age should have access to completely confidential commun…

> Or do you believe that a child of any age should have access to completely confidential communication outside of a medical setting?

Confidential from governments/corporations/people that aren't their parents? Yes, absolutely.

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

#68

Post by abofh »

thelibertines wrote: post #63
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…

I hear you, but children aren't raised by parents alone. They are also raised by society and environment. It has to go hand in hand. Implementing structures in communications and tech that evolve around actual real-life material conditions and challenges, is what will make any innovation useful. Society can no longer afford to separate well-being and technology as two separate concerns for the long run. It's either f…

Society plays a role, but like raising a dog, it's on the parents to socialize them and teach them how to interface with it safely.

Society cannot progress if the adults have to live in a child safe box. There must be places safe for children, but it's the parents who have to keep them from sticking their fingers in plug sockets, not putting the burden on having a third party validate their access to electrons.

If you send your child to a bar, they'll see alcohol - if you send them to the internet, they'll find the internet. I'm happy to tell you you shouldn't do that with your kids, but if you do it with yours, it's not on me to stop drinking at bars.

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

#69

Post by newswasboring »

abofh wrote: post #54
newswasboring wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are just asserting things because it feels right. I don't have children myself but I have a gaggle of nieces and nephews and I just can't bring myself to be convinced that they can be trained to thwart the plans of an adult. Add to that all the cases I've heard about, no parent said they didn't try to train their child not to talk to strangers. The predators are using tools designed by billion dollar…

It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes. If you want to protect your children, you have to be able to take those steps, not outsource the responsibility to someone else with time and money. Predators are bad, but most of them are known to the child before the injury -- that suggests parents are way…

> It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes.

This is such an infuriatingly bad victim blaming comment that I can't believe it's on this forum.

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

#70

Post by abofh »

newswasboring wrote: post #69
abofh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes. If you want to protect your children, you have to be able to take those steps, not outsource the responsibility to someone else with time and money. Predators are bad, but most of them are known to the child before the injury -- that suggests parents are way…

> It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes. This is such an infuriatingly bad victim blaming comment that I can't believe it's on this forum.

Nobodies blaming the victim - that was the assertion of the problem by you.

If you have children you can't support, don't blame society that you're having trouble supporting them. It's callous maybe, but remember the victims are the children, not the parents. The parents created the problem

Post reply on HN