Another step in towards the endgame, mass surveillance state.
TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
281–290 of 458 posts
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parents are already allowed to restrict their children access to 'dangerous' things like open computers or knives.
I don't think debazel was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers for the benefit of the children. He was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers so that the government would have no excuse to regulate what's allowed on computers.
so we agree that governments only using the safety of children as pretext to extend their control of people's lives, otherwise there are better solution protect children of the harms of the internet.
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#283Making users less safe from… letting us snoop on all your communications for “national security”.
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#284DMs are akin to private conversations in real life. Thus, every DM feature should entail E2EE. It’s ok for a platform to not feature private conversations. They should just have no DM feature at all, then; make all messages publicly visible. Private conversations are indeed not for all ages. Parents should be able to grant access to that on individual basis.
> They should just have no DM feature at all, then; make all messages publicly visible. This makes no sense. I can discuss something in a bar which is not a very private conversation, I wouldn't care if someone else hear what I'm saying. But I also don't want someone to record it and post it on the internet to be seen by the whole world. Privacy is not just boolean you toggle somewhere.
I suppose they mean that apps should brand their non e2ee chat features as private or personal, which is what users take as the default assumption when interacting in one to one chat.
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#285I think this is... fine? Am I just totally naive. I think it's fine to say "You don't really have privacy on this app" - as long as there are relatively good options of apps that do have privacy (and I think there are). TikTok is really a public by default type of social media, there's not much idea of mutual following or closed groups. So sure, you don't have privacy on tiktok, if you want it you can move to snapcha…
It might be fine if they presented an honest choice.
They are lying straight off though... police and safety team don't read messages only "if they needed to" to keep people safe. They do so for a large variety of other reasons, such as suppressing political dissent and asserting domination and control.
I don't think we can expect most people to understand TikTok's BS here either. I notice even a skeptic like you is uncritically echoing the dubious conflation of privacy and CSAM.
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
The email protocols would like to have a chat with you.
You can bring your own encryption to that, and bring your own client to automate it.
you can encrypt the content but not the metadata, not even the subject unless you use a customized client that encodes it (like deltachat which doesn't use a subject at all), but then you still have your email address exposed.
for all intents and purposes email is not e2ee.
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine Hamas are your government and want to figure out who's gay. You don't want a MITM in case they can do this. Pick your definition of safe.
In that case don't use Tiktok dm's to discuss your sexuality. I think it is strange that people feel like they have to be able to talk on sensitive topics over every interface they can get their hands on. Similarly in "traditional" media you may not want to discuss such private conversation on a radio broadcast. Perhaps you would rather discuss it on the phone or over snail mail as there is more of an expectation of…
I'm commenting in the context of the conversation, not in a vacuum. You could just as (in fact, much more) easily say that children shouldn't be on apps with private messaging enabled. That would help a lot more, and then we could keep e2ee.
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
This honestly sounds like the best proposed solution I have heard.
Agreed. Putting the burden on parents is quite something: 1. You end up being the bad guy, other parents don't restrict their kids internet usage etc. Some folks would argue to just not set up restrictions and trust them. But it's a slippery slope and puts kids in a weird position. They start out with innocent YouTube videos, but pretty quickly a web search or even a comment can lead them to strange places. They want…
After struggling with this problem for a while, we started using Qustodio. It's not perfect by any means, but it's the most broadly effective and usable tool for parental control I've found. Loads better than the confusing iOS native screen time tools.
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claiming e2e makes children less safe is flat out dishonest. And the irony of you criticising “absolutes” after trying to pass one is just delicious.
What are children at risk of, when E2EE is used? What are children at risk of, when E2EE is not used?
This is the argument they can’t have…
Re: TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which has never worked. Korea had a system to prevent kids from gaming after midnight for something like 15 years. All it did was make Korean kids very good at memorizing their parents ID.
In China they link the ID to a phone number (via mobile carriers) and the online services require you to authenticate using the phone (SMS etc.) Unless the kids are able to secretly access the parent's phone there's no low-effort way to work around the system. I don't know about Korea but if memorizing an ID number works, then that's just a badly designed system. I'm not sure what your argument is really, unless you'…
The point is, where there’s a will, there’s a way.