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

Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 579 posts

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#21

Post by [deleted] »

Aurornis wrote: post #9
johnea wrote: post #5

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.

[deleted]

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#22

Post by tzs »

johnea wrote: post #5

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)

The references I saw showed Meta had lobbied for some of the laws that require age verification be done by the site or by third party ID services. They did not show that Meta lobbied for any of the OS bills.

Some showed that Meta had lobbied in some of the states with those bills, but they just showed Meta's total lobbying budget for those states.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#23

Post by markdown »

gzread wrote: post #14
Aurornis wrote: post #4

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.

The first two E's in E2EE stand for end. From one end to the other. So no, Meta can't. Or put another way... if they can read those messages, then it's not E2EE.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#24

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

interestpiqued wrote: post #20
cristoperb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats That can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?

I mean you can read it in your app and they're not just stored on your phone. E2E just means in transport from what I understand.

E2EE means end-to-end, where the ends are the participants in the chat. They can read it on your phone, but not on their servers. They need their app to separately transmit the plaintext to their servers to read it.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#25

Post by gnabgib »

gzread wrote: post #17
idle_zealot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this apply to, say, Signal?

That's why Signal requires a phone number. You can't talk to people you don't know because complete strangers don't give you their phone number. And if you do spam random numbers, they'll report you to the police and you can be tracked down based on your identifier, which still doesn't leak the chats between you and people you actually know.

No.. it doesn't. https://freedom.press/digisec/blog/signal-identifiers/

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#26

Post by babelfish »

gzread wrote: post #19
cristoperb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats That can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?

In the sense that calling it E2EE gives people a warm fuzzy feeling and makes people send more sensitive information over the platform. Has anyone actually audited it?

Probably their auditors? Lying about this would be tantamount to (very serious) securities fraud. Not sure what you're basing on your allegations on besides "trust me bro"

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#27

Post by pylua »

Aurornis wrote: post #4

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…

I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#28

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

pylua wrote: post #27
Aurornis wrote: post #4

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…

I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.

The problem is all these ‘for the children’ arguments contain collateral damage.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#29

Post by throwaway173738 »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #24
interestpiqued wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you can read it in your app and they're not just stored on your phone. E2E just means in transport from what I understand.

E2EE means end-to-end, where the ends are the participants in the chat. They can read it on your phone, but not on their servers. They need their app to separately transmit the plaintext to their servers to read it.

Which is technically possible.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#30

Post by fourside »

pylua wrote: post #27
Aurornis wrote: post #4

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…

I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.

I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.
Post reply on HN