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

491–500 of 579 posts

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

#491

Post by pyuser583 »

bitwize wrote: post #8
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…

The Clipper chip is coming back.

How is the Clipper chip different from what online platforms claim have: a curated kids only section?

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

#492

Post by chii »

pyuser583 wrote: post #489
mjevans wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct nuance here is... * Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent) * Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice) In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus. Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that…

It’s very hard to control kids internet access. Impossible really. Even if you do it fine at home, once they go to school it’s whatever policies the school has. Most require laptops and provide internet access.

> it’s whatever policies the school has.

so the school takes on that responsibility, as deputized by the parents.

Kids don't get unfettered access to the streets while at school. They can't take their bikes and ride out at will. What makes the internet and devices any different? The devices provided by the school should be lockdown-able, and kids should not be provided their own device unless there's a parental lock (which is enabled during school hours, and is similarly locked down).

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

#493

Post by cineticdaffodil »

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…

Only accounts that exist 14 year plus are elligible for e2e?

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

#494

Post by cineticdaffodil »

chii wrote: post #492
pyuser583 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very hard to control kids internet access. Impossible really. Even if you do it fine at home, once they go to school it’s whatever policies the school has. Most require laptops and provide internet access.

> it’s whatever policies the school has. so the school takes on that responsibility, as deputized by the parents. Kids don't get unfettered access to the streets while at school. They can't take their bikes and ride out at will. What makes the internet and devices any different? The devices provided by the school should be lockdown-able, and kids should not be provided their own device unless there's a parental lock…

They could actually in the 80s and 90s.

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

#495

Post by bluegatty »

TheDong wrote: post #93
bluegatty wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" that it requires an entire legal framework, evidence of potential wrongdoing, proof that there is no other method to achieve the goal of validating guilt" No it doesn't. Life is no Reddit, lawyers and technicalities. It's made up of regular people in communities. If you see some guy creeping on 10 year-olds, you can notify the police and Facebook will do that as well - for the same reason. It may not at all need to…

With e2e encryption, the signals you have are pretty minimal. Let's say a 40 y/o man finds a phone on the ground, sees a name stuck on it, googles "name + town" and finds the facebook of a 12 y/o girl, and messages "Hey I found this phone, do you recognize it? " With e2e encryption, you can't easily tell the difference between that and a creep. This thread is advocating that exactly that case should result in a polic…

The world is nuanced.

Imagine no e2e for a moment for FB. Policy can be smart enough to pick up that this communication is not represntative or normal. That's part of detection.

Second, a single message to someone on a random phone is not going to flag anything.

Third - there is no assumption of guilt. Not even an arrest is assumption of guilt.

Finally - those are extraordinary corner cases. They will happen, but the get resolved the moment the guy says 'oh, I found this phone' - because that will be 100% clear in that context.

Obviously - things can go awry. Meta flag something as bad, sends it to police - they do not follow procedure, or don't apply something correclty and arrest a guy at his place of work. But in the scenario you described, its literally not a problem - there are 'common sense checks' through the whole thing. The algo, the human making the notification to the police, the police, the judge if a warrant is required. People are not going to be arrested because they found a phone and texted their niece - if that happens, then we have another set of problems.

We can 100% have our 'friendly community' with Facebook.

Now - with an e2e thing like Signal, well, yes, it could theoretically be a problem, but the likelihood of some rando finding a phone, that's not locked, and being able to text some other 12 year old, an effectively 'pose' as their 'contact' - well that's a rare case scenario.

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

#496

Post by AnthonyMouse »

itissid wrote: post #469
mjevans wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct nuance here is... * Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent) * Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice) In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus. Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that…

I think getting the age thing correct is key to get parental classification to work properly(I think now platforms just ask for a birth date which is lame) e.g > Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13: https://archive.ph/y3pQO Once you get the classificati…

> only via community ombudsman/age verifiers

Why do you need any third parties whatsoever? Just have the parents do it. They configure a setting in the kid's device which the device uses to determine what content to display. All you need from the app/service is a rating for the content. No third parties should never have to know anything about the user, because the user's device knows that, and the device knows it because the parents do.

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

#497

Post by bluegatty »

b112 wrote: post #463
bluegatty wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" You really don't want corporations to have algorithms which mean they have to report trigger words to the police or state" They already do. The entire financial system, all of social media, and many organizations past a certain size. I did not quote out of context - the commenter was missattributing context.

I absolutely did not misattribute my own context, whatever that action means. And some things are reported, others are not, point being, yes E2E isn't reported for obvious reasons. Loads of stuff isn't reported on social media; in fact, that's the absurd complaint against Meta! And regardless of what is done now, that doesn't mean we want it. I didn't say it is or isn't done, I said "You really don't" want that. The…

You 'misatributed' the quote by extending my general notion to some specific notion of privacy.

We 100% absolutely do want 'basic surveillance' on many systems, and it's not even an argument.

It's like saying 'We shouldn't have police, because they are oppressive!' and assuming things would just carry on and not go to pot.

It's a wild assertion.

Formally - the entire financial system is about attribution, fraud, monitoring and security.

That's probably more than 1/2 of the function.

Your money would not be safe if your bank didn't have good controls, or if we did not have good regulations around those functions.

It's why if you send > $10K overseas, it gets flagged. We generally want this, though obviously within a regulated context.

Less formally, we absolutely, 100% do want the 'Starbucks employees' to have enough common sense to call the police or to flag something if there is some creepshow doing something that may be 'legal' but is obviously not appropriate - within reason.

Starbucks has not only 'policy' around behaviour, but also we have 'common sense' as a society.

It's not even remotely contentious that Starbucks is both private property and can set some 'terms' , but that it's also a regular community locale, with social conventions.

Just as Facebook - and many (most places) like that are 'community hang outs' - subject to regular social conventions, established by the 'owners'.

They're not 'no-identity-hacker-zones' for folks to publish their freak-ware or whatever, with ultra privacy guarantees.

Conversely - yes - it's just as important that if people want to establish their 'hacker-zones' - they can do that. That's important. And obviously Facebook has to be subject to some minimal privacy regulations.

But most places will have some degree of social overview (like literally the grocery store would have) and 'that's normal' in any civil society.

It's already pervasive because it's impossible to have basic social function without them.

Read the story about the former Twitter CEO who talks about this kind of thing pre-Elon Musk. 'Moderation' is most of the job and by far the hardest thing. We think of it as 'back end systems' it has almost nothing to do with that. It's the 'social' part of the 'social network' that's the key part. Moderation.

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

#498

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mjevans wrote: post #31
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…

The correct nuance here is... * Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent) * Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice) In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus. Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that…

> Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent)

Notice also that even if you do this, you still don't need the service to be able to decrypt the content, only the parent.

This could even be generically useful, e.g. you have a messenger used by business and then the messages can be read by the client company's administrator/manager but not the messaging company's.

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

#499

Post by AnthonyMouse »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #487
itissid wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think getting the age thing correct is key to get parental classification to work properly(I think now platforms just ask for a birth date which is lame) e.g > Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13: https://archive.ph/y3pQO Once you get the classificati…

This all depends on fantasy tech and/or totalitarian control of tech. Who verifies that the person verifying the child's age is actually authorised to do that? Who verifies that verification? And so on up. This needs a chain of trust that can only end up at government. And that chain of trust will then be open to being abused by shitty politicians. What mechanism in (e.g) Linux is responsible for implementing this ag…

> What mechanism in (e.g) Linux is responsible for implementing this age verification so that it cannot be tampered with (or trivially overruled by a sudo call)? Which organisation is legally liable if that mechanism doesn't do its job? How can we stop someone from overwriting that mechanism with their own, in an open OS that is deliberately designed to allow anyone with root to change anything on it?

This one is easy. You just don't require all devices to do that. The parent isn't required to give the kid a general purpose computer. You don't need to prevent every device from running DOOM, only one device, and then parents who want to impose such restrictions get the kid one of those.

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

#500

Post by casey2 »

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…

It's illegal to hand a minor harmful material. Meta did exactly that. I support people's rights to make and buy sports cars, But it is illegal to hand the keys to a minor and leave them unsupervised.
Post reply on HN