11–20 of 579 posts
Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts) They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else... As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.
Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts) They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else... As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.
You were downvoted, but right. Meta wants to be able to say, "hey, the OS said she was 18!" and not get in trouble for it. Online child exploitation should be a strict liability offense.
> The fake child accounts were allegedly contacted and solicited for sex by the three New Mexico adult men who were arrested in May of 2024. Two of the three men were arrested at a motel, where they allegedly believed they would be meeting up with a 12-year-old girl, based on their conversations with the decoy accounts.
and
> “The product is very good at connecting people with interests, and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls,” Bejar said.
This is what it's about right? The article doesn't make it seem like encryption is meaningfully part of this case at all.
> Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.
There's no indication that that decision, or the announcement, are directly related to the trial, just they just happened at the same time? It's a link drawn by CNN, without presenting any clear connection
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…
We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…
Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security? We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
That can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?
Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts) They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else... As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.
> As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need. You don't see any benefit to allowing people to encrypt their private communications in a way that can't be accessed by the company? It's weird to see tech news commenters swing from being pro-privacy to anti-privacy when the topic of social media sites come up.
There's a difference between E2EE between friends who want to remain secure, and E2EE between strangers in an attempt for the platform to avoid legal liability for spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You were downvoted, but right. Meta wants to be able to say, "hey, the OS said she was 18!" and not get in trouble for it. Online child exploitation should be a strict liability offense.
How does this apply to, say, Signal?
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…
Absolutely. Particularly where they've been found to be guilty.
> but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption
Why _social media_ companies are backtracking. I'm extremely nonplussed by this outcome.
> concerns that allowing teens
Yes, because that's what we all had in mind when considering the victims and perpetrators of these crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security? We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
> We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats That can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?
Has anyone actually audited it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security? We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
> We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats That can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?