Live data from Hacker News

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

cnn.com

501–510 of 579 posts

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

#501
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?

So a new service can't offer E2EE for 14 years?

Also, so an aspiring pedo who gets a job at the service can now read the messages of all the underaged kids?

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

#502
post #492

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…

That’s just not how the system works.

Each school brews its own system more or less.

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

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eas…

Thanks for the response. Couple of points:

- The line between "general purpose computer" and "not that" is weird. Android is an implementation of Linux, after all. Probably the best example is a Steam Deck. It's just Arch Linux, you can get to a desktop on it no problem, and you get sudo access and can install whatever you like on it. Are you saying that Responsible Parents should not get their kids a Steam Deck?

- And that raises the point of how responsible are we making parents for technical decisions that they do not necessarily have the knowledge to implement? If a child works out how to circumvent the age restriction and look at boobies (or whatever) and an authority finds out, are the parents liable? Are they likely to be prosecuted? Isn't this just adding more burden and bureaucracy to the job of parenting?

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

#504
post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with smoking, alcohol, sex, drugs etc Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice.

Sorry what? Kids with low parental supervision who steal uncle Roy's marlboro are more likely to be able to cope with tobacco addiction? Do you have any reasons to think this might be the case? Studies, research, a well thought-out article?

To get reliable access you either need to convince an adult to give you access (which is always game over) or you need to engage in some kind of future planning, which is a similar skill set as the one necessary to notice that getting addicted to cancer thing might be a bad idea. Stealing uncle Roy's marlboro doesn't work because uncle Roy is generally then going to notice that they're going missing and either start securing them better or deduce where they're going and visit some punishment on the kid.

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

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 eas…

Thanks for the response. Couple of points: - The line between "general purpose computer" and "not that" is weird. Android is an implementation of Linux, after all. Probably the best example is a Steam Deck. It's just Arch Linux, you can get to a desktop on it no problem, and you get sudo access and can install whatever you like on it. Are you saying that Responsible Parents should not get their kids a Steam Deck? - A…

> Are you saying that Responsible Parents should not get their kids a Steam Deck?

I'm saying Authoritarian Parents should not get their kids a Steam Deck. If the kid can run arbitrary code then they can get a VPN and access websites hosted in Eastern Europe and then any of this is moot because there is no law you can impose on Facebook to do anything about it.

> If a child works out how to circumvent the age restriction and look at boobies (or whatever) and an authority finds out, are the parents liable?

No, because the parents rather than the "authorities" (who TF is that anyway?) should be the ones in charge of the decision whether the kid can look at boobies to begin with.

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

#506
post #31
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…

I don’t agree we should Treat everyone as an adult by default online. We wouldn’t do that in any other circumstances.

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

#507
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 don’t agree we should Treat everyone as an adult by default online. We wouldn’t do that in any other circumstances.

And the only reason it is permissible to presumptively treat people as underage until proven otherwise in the physical world is that there isn't a constellation of intermediaries collecting all your habits and preferences when you buy porno magazines or alcohol in person.

Why is the answer people seem to arrive at being "mandatory collection of blackmail material that will ruin careers and relationships" when it comes to the Internet?

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

#508
post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry what? Kids with low parental supervision who steal uncle Roy's marlboro are more likely to be able to cope with tobacco addiction? Do you have any reasons to think this might be the case? Studies, research, a well thought-out article?

To get reliable access you either need to convince an adult to give you access (which is always game over) or you need to engage in some kind of future planning, which is a similar skill set as the one necessary to notice that getting addicted to cancer thing might be a bad idea. Stealing uncle Roy's marlboro doesn't work because uncle Roy is generally then going to notice that they're going missing and either start…

I mean what if Roy doesn't care?

We're just optimising for kids with shitty family at this point.

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

#509
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Clipper chip is coming back.

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

In the mid-90s the US government proposed that Clipper be used as the universal encryption standard for secure electronic communications in the civilian realm, all other cryptosystems being presumably forbidden. It was based on the idea of key escrow: that all Clipper keys be held in an archive and law enforcement could recover a copy of the encryption key for any given Clipper chip upon providing legitimate authorization to intercept communications. However, the Skipjack protocol used by the chip was buggy and insecure, and consumer CPUs became powerful enough that military-grade encryption was practical in software, rendering Clipper moot. A series of First Amendment rulings protected the proliferation of such software cryptosystems under the rubric that computer program code was protected speech.

The Meta ruling gives the government an effective stick, First Amendment notwithstanding: if you facilitate communication that the government cannot break into, and someone abuses a child with help from your secure platform, you could be liable for contributing to the abuse of that child. A safe harbor from liability will be provided—by adopting key escrow based encryption (if you support encryption at all). This does not interfere with protected speech about cryptosystems, but it makes using cryptosystems difficult in practice due to the chilling effects.

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

#510
post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get reliable access you either need to convince an adult to give you access (which is always game over) or you need to engage in some kind of future planning, which is a similar skill set as the one necessary to notice that getting addicted to cancer thing might be a bad idea. Stealing uncle Roy's marlboro doesn't work because uncle Roy is generally then going to notice that they're going missing and either start…

I mean what if Roy doesn't care? We're just optimising for kids with shitty family at this point.

If Roy doesn't care then you have a kid with an adult who gives them access, which is the scenario where none of this is going to work. Even if you required government IDs with hourly retina scans, it doesn't work if Roy is willing to let the kids hold the device up to his face whenever they want.
Post reply on HN