[deleted]
Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
271–280 of 299 posts
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I support the sentiment that privacy is important, comparing encryption to locks in this ghastly context is self-defeating. Recall that there were more than one instance where critical evidence against a wealthy person, required for the prosecution to make a compelling case in court, was obtained by force with a police raid. At least one such instance happened in the US in 2019 and was well-publicized. Now imag…
There is no encryption that is 100% immune. All encryption can have its key guessed, if the key is expressible in bits. This ensures that classical encryption schemes, even post-quantum ones, have a guessability or hardness in terms of the number of bits that must be correctly guessed at once in order to forge credentials. This reasoning leads to export-grade cryptography, a bane of our praactice that nonetheless was…
"Export-grade encryption" was always a bad idea. You can block the export of stronger encryption schemes but nothing prevents them from being developed outside the country. The result is that all new and innovative crypto work gets done elsewhere, leaving your own country playing catch-up.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't seem to understand is that this is the downside of living in a free society No, what they don’t understand is that the cryptography that protects your bank account is the exact same cryptography that (supposedly) makes law enforcement difficult. There’s no way to separate the two, any more than you can separate the arithmetic that is responsible for updating your bank account from the arithmetic that is respo…
Of course there's a way to separate them. Let banks do what they like and obstruct everyone else in some way. As another poster phrased the argument: "Corporations should have access to strong encryption, just not little people."
Please don't be a corporatist. It's not like corporations will stand up for you once you've given them your rights.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We cant globally protect children from shitty parents. Abuse and exploitation happens even in households where the parents are literally given stipends to pay for the child's care and upbringing-- be it in foster care or post-divorce. Some people just lack humanity.
Yes, abuse still happens, but is it the same rate?
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, but you can order physical abuse over the internet Is this actually taking place at a non-negligible scale?
Large enough that it bothers me. The Philippines is particularly problematic, the unofficial figures are that you're looking at roundabout 700K perps world-wide and an (obviously) smaller number of producers, how accurate those are I have no idea. Fortunately my exposure to this stuff has diminished drastically over the last couple of years because I stay a mile away from anything associated with webcams but when ww.…
> 700K perps world-wide and an (obviously) smaller number of producers
The figures I'd want are not consumers or producers but numbers of children. A child being abused 1000 times is obviously awful but its not as bad as 1000 being abused once.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 convin…
> What would you consider a fact? A half dozen links to such content?
Well, one link would be a start. And to consider something a fact, I'd generally want to see some evidence. When I'm told something is a fact but there is no evidence to support the assertion, or if the evidence turns out to be an estimate with questionable methodology methodology (say, 1 In 5 College Women Are Sexually Assaulted), then I tend to lower my opinion on the honesty of the individual or person involved.
> But that Unicef report is there for you to read and if that does not convince you likely nothing will.
It is?
> 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.
I don't follow Thailand terribly closely, but I'd be interested to know details about this, particularly how they know child porn producers were there but left.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no doubts that whatever depravity a child can be submitted to that I can think up has or will have happened, and worse. There is certainly no god that prevents it, there is only us humans, and there are a handful of very sick individuals among the seven billion — that's just a statistical surety. > The two are not mutually exclusive. There we agree. But politicians worldwide do keep turning this into a 'think-…
> and there are a handful of very sick individuals among the seven billion This is where you're wrong. Child porn is a substantial market, estimated to be in the billions of $ per year. It's a disproportionate amount compared to 'regular' porn because of the criminal element and the risks involved, just like illegal drugs are far more expensive than legal ones (in most parts of the world, anyway). Politicians abusing…
> estimated to be in the billions of $ per year.
That seems ridiculously high unless it's millionares being charged $500k a pop. Got a source on that?
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Minimizing the incidence of digitally-enabled child abuse is not a winning strategy for protecting our right to use strong encryption. For one thing, it puts you in the position of defining what incidence of child abuse is low enough to be somehow acceptable. Is the Internet helping one person to abuse a child? Any normal person would say that even one is unacceptable. For another thing, it can easily make you look l…
> Is the Internet helping one person to abuse a child? Any normal person would say that even one is unacceptable.
What does "unacceptable" even mean? How much do these normal people think society be willing to invest to prevent that one instance of abuse?
For an extreme example: it's probably below the $10 trillion cost of completely shutting down the global internet.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but then we're not talking about the vast majority of digital transgressions are we? That is, the simple (re)distribution of child pornography — ghastly enough as that is — not the few who actively seek out and order new abusive material from those who actually produce the stuff. This debate is about proportionality. How many children can live a marginally better live by giving up strong encryption and privacy…
It's easy. Someone uses encryption? Jail him regardless of the content. You can't hide the existence of the message.
Of course you can hide the existence of the message. The art and science of doing so is called steganography. Some forms of steganography are intended to be completely undetectable, while others merely offer plausible deniability.
Re: Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and there are a handful of very sick individuals among the seven billion This is where you're wrong. Child porn is a substantial market, estimated to be in the billions of $ per year. It's a disproportionate amount compared to 'regular' porn because of the criminal element and the risks involved, just like illegal drugs are far more expensive than legal ones (in most parts of the world, anyway). Politicians abusing…
> estimated to be in the billions of $ per year. That seems ridiculously high unless it's millionares being charged $500k a pop. Got a source on that?
I find it strange to see the same comment being replied to by that the amount is insubstantial and that it is ridiculously high. Maybe the two of you can come to some kind of an arrangement?