Live data from Hacker News

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

simplex.chat

81–84 of 84 posts

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

#81
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not read anything else I wrote and only focused on one thing?

Do you understand that what you're writing is repeatedly saying it's everyone else's fault? The people screaming think of the children are almost always the ones I want nowhere near children.

I find your implication petty offensive, but moving on. I'm advocating for giving parents tools to "show up" as you say. I don't know wtf you are advocating for.

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

#82
post #40
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

[deleted]

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

#83
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have association revealed openly to anyone having access to Signal server by User ID but barely know the name or phone associated with either end, much less ever able to see any actual and readable message content. Unless it is the end-device being "accessed"/compromised, which any nation-state can do.

Why would it be impossible for Signal to decrypt and re-encrypt on their server while pretending to be "peer 2 peer encrypted" if we don't know what's running on their server? What's more: we don't even have the source of the client binary running on our phone.

Also "which any nation-state can do" is an interesting angle.

Let me put that differently: why would Signal NOT be a honey-pot operated by the CIA/NSA/other? Sounds almost too easy to not be true.

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

#84
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand that what you're writing is repeatedly saying it's everyone else's fault? The people screaming think of the children are almost always the ones I want nowhere near children.

I find your implication petty offensive, but moving on. I'm advocating for giving parents tools to "show up" as you say. I don't know wtf you are advocating for.

Children. Always the children - you're advocating for parents to delegate their responsibilities. I'm advocating for children. There's no implication, I'm being quite explicit - protect the children -- especially from bad parents.
Post reply on HN