Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators • Hacker News Board

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#241

Post by scotty79 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

sdfsafsawe wrote: post #229

scotty79 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's how it should be argued. Strong encryption software exists. It's on the internet. You can't make it disappear. If you outlaw it, law observing people won't use it. But how would you force a criminal not to use it if you can't force him not to abuse children?

Simple. First assume that a random-looking message is sent only by criminals. Second, ignore the theoretical problems with measuring kolgomorov complexity of a message. That's just academic mumbo jumbo - "can I zip the message?" is good enough. Third, buy $80 car battery at HD with $20 booster cables.

And how do you plan to detect steganography in funny cat pictures?

Or zip files that just seem corrupted? Will you try to unpack everything?

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#242

Post by cr0sh » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #38

The weirdest part of this argument is that law abiding people get no encryption while people who break the law will still have access to encryption, so how does it help you catch pedophiles? I don’t really understand how this will work in reality for things like SSL or ssh.

No - the really weird part is that you know that both law enforcement and politicians will all get to use unbreakable encryption...

...but somehow, anyone else using such encryption will be deemed a criminal.

I say what is actually being attempted is that law enforcement and politicians (and our governments by extension) are just wanting to hide their criminal acts behind encryption - but project those criminal wants and ideas onto the ordinary citizen as an excuse.

If we as a society fall for this ruse, children will still be exploited - by the connected and the powerful in our governments, as they currently are today. It's just that these people want that capability to themselves, they want it secret, and they don't want the small players to have the same abilities.

If recent events haven't shown people that, they aren't paying attention and deserve the misery they will build for themselves. They essentially want a future where they can continue doing what they do today, but without the oversight that eventually leads to them needing to "secretly" kill off a person who might rat them out (and then do whatever it takes to suppress any and all mention in the media of any follow-up to the story - we are watching this happen real-time, and I don't know exactly how it works, but it seemingly is working very, very well - despite all the evidence and everything else already out in the public domain; there are forces and organizations that want it buried - and they are currently winning).

If only they have unbreakable encryption - and oversight of it all - only they can get away with it and not have to worry about those pesky stories (and should anyone internal to the system harbor objections - then they can be easily eliminated without anyone knowing either - or at least they think this, I believe).

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#243

Post by soraminazuki » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #110

pixelpoet wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to throw out anything and everything to win that unwinnable battle, first goes encryption, then cameras, then computers, and then finally all humans after puberty. Obviously there must be some reasonable limit, and making all encryption illegal (or just for civilians, and then shady stuff will start happening under govt and corporate encryption) is truly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in tha…

Yes I agree with you. But at the same time, I don’t feel comfortable knowing what is going on and just accepting that it is a cost of liberty. We are talking about the worst, most harmful most exploitative human behaviour that destroys lives. If we can’t introduce some nuance and proportionality here then well I think we are doomed. Guns aren’t a good example... I mean guns are regulated? There isn’t total liberty th…

Well, encryption doesn't cause child exploitation, very much like how the air we (and criminals alike) breathe doesn't either. Limitations of police powers are there for a very good reason, and it's not like there wasn't much crime when they were introduced. I think it's short-sighted to give up our civil liberties because of crime.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#244

Post by xt00 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #8

This is a good time to remember that police forces work for governments and not the other way around. Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they had full-text search access to all conversations and content, worldwide. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea. They’re asking for something to make their job easier... can’t blame them for trying, and of course who doesn’t want to catch people who h…

Regarding the question of who watches the watchers, I do wonder if any country has tried appointing a group of citizens who essentially get to watch everything the police do. It would seem like that primary complaints would be that the officers privacy is violated and secondly that people who are under investigation’s privacy would also be violated. But otherwise what kind of oversight or threat of oversight do these guys have? Maybe another approach is you have a group of pseudo officers that are like internal affairs people who’s job it is to investigate the police and maybe that could extend to “watching the watchers”?

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#245

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #175

jacquesm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article quotes a Unicef report that I can't find a good source for, and the Phillipines being problematic in this respect is something that is not exactly a secret, it is where a lot of 'production' happens. I'm sure if you dig around a bit you'll find lots of corroboration for that datum. Anyway, I'm on the clock and only look at HN during breaks right now, if not for that I'd be more than happy to find better r…

> The article quotes a Unicef report that I can't find a good source for, And what does this Unicef report say? > and the Phillipines being problematic in this respect is something that is not exactly a secret Terms like "problematic" are excellent for persuasion, as they exclude any quantitative component as they invoke fear. > I'm sure if you dig around a bit you'll find lots of corroboration for that datum. Like t…

> I prefer the warnings to have some basis in fact.

What would you consider a fact? A half dozen links to such content?

Really, I'm not sure what you are getting at here, there is plenty of evidence for this stuff being real and being sourced from a limited number of countries if you want to argue the opposite then I'm perfectly ok with that. But that Unicef report is there for you to read and if that does not convince you likely nothing will.

Just like NL has a - justified - bad reputation for hosting a lot of this content so the Philippines have - unfortunately - a bad reputation for being on the producing end. For a while it was Thailand, then the Thai really cracked down on the sex tourists and the child porn production and so the producers shifted to another location.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#246

Post by turc1656 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

I love how governments love to pretend that either none of these crimes happened prior to the digital communication age or that they never caught anyone prior to it (which they definitely did).

Let's also take a step back and consider the series of events and how this would play into that. Under normal circumstances, you need a warrant/reason to look at such data and communications. The theory here is that if they could decrypt everything that would make their job much easier. Fair point. But in the world 20-30 years ago these tools never existed so there was no such communication to capture. Which means the evidence was non-existent.

Yet, through other means of investigation they were able to identify and gather evidence against these criminals and prosecute them. How did they do that? It's because these are real world crimes (meaning not purely residing in the digital world) so there is real world evidence to be gathered. And all the other methods they have without decrypting data still applies. That can mean tracking credit card charges, phone calls, cell tower pings, etc, etc. As we know, they can build out quite a substantial profile of a criminal network in that manner. They can correlate all sorts of things and gather insights into the data.

This is just government pulling a classic fear-mongering bullshit tactic wrapped in a "think about the children!" plea to simply make their lives easier while simultaneously trying to whittle down our privacy rights even further.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#247

Post by EGreg » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #238

EGreg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can have voting on a merkle tree, each person gets exactly one token. If they lose it they can recover it with friends etc. We can automate safety nets and payouts using technology, and calculate the consumer price index. We could have direct democracy or each person could select their delegate. We can start on a local community level.

Which sounds like you are saying that we should strengthen individual power ... so how is that the opposite of anything I said?

We may have misunderstood each other. I agree we should empower individuals in general, and try to defuse centralization of power. And I thought by powerful individuals you meant people in the government or some rival organizations.

I began talking about recording interactions, though, being potentially a very good thing.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#248

Post by SkyBelow » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #161

mikece wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Normal humans can’t imagine the depravity to which child predators descend. I’ve heard stories from the teams who review content uploaded to YouTube to remove this filth and people who were just looking for a paying job end up alcoholic, suicidal and psychologically messed up for life after Only a few weeks of encountering this this stuff as part of the flagged content review process…

Yup, my guess is that child predators, by and large, are basically criminal psychopaths. I wonder how many of them only prey on kids because they're such a convenient, vulnerable target.

From what I remember the research suggests this isn't the case. But that was research for predators in general, not the ones spreading abuse images, and thus the findings in the larger group may not apply to the smaller.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#249

Post by cr0sh » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #137

andy_ppp wrote: post #38

The weirdest part of this argument is that law abiding people get no encryption while people who break the law will still have access to encryption, so how does it help you catch pedophiles? I don’t really understand how this will work in reality for things like SSL or ssh.

> law abiding people get no encryption while people who break the law will still have access to encryption, so how does it help you catch pedophiles? If only people who break the law use encryption, then everyone who uses encryption must be breaking some law (that is, "(~lawbreaker => ~encryption) => (encryption => lawbreaker)"). That is, instead of having to do all the work to find out if the guy is really a pedophi…

But they'll allow a cutout for politicians and law enforcement (aka government) - ergo, such people -must- also be criminals.

Heck - we know today, encryption using or not - many within our governments are at best shady, and more than a few are criminals or perform criminal acts.

They say "think of the children"? Trust me - they already are, and not in the good way.

We have no idea just how far and deep the tentacles of Epstein's "system" went - but based on what we already know and/or suspect - it was far reaching, involving many high-up government officials, corporations, public and private universities, and likely more. It wouldn't surprise me to find out high-up law enforcement and quite possibly even individuals involved in child protection systems were involved as well. I'm almost certain there were more than a few state governors involved. Probably also members of the media, bankers - if you can think of it, Epstein probably had one or more of them involved.

They didn't want him to spill the beans. And now, they want things to be even more quiet, so they can monitor, but can't be monitored themselves.

Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

#250

Post by SkyBelow » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #79

jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Child protection should be treated much more as a "local" than "global" issue. That, unfortunately, is no longer an option. Pedophile rings including the content producers have realized long ago that going international gives them an extra layer of protection.

You can't physically abuse over the internet though, that's my point and that's why I separated the two concepts of "removing content from the Internet" and "Protecting children from harm". The digital is an after-effect of the physical.

For starters, we can't globally protect children from poverty. This in turn opens up parents in extreme poverty (such as having to choose which kid gets enough resources to survive) to be willing to make exchanges that we cannot fathom.