Taking away privacy makes it easier for children to be abused.
Remember, the most likely abusers of children are not strangers off the Internet; they’re people who have authority over those children: parents, church leaders, teachers, coaches, police, etc.
Private online communication makes it easier for abused children to get help.
In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.
In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.
So no different than all these laws that (supposedly) “stop sex trafficking” which only exist to clamp down on sex work while… drumroll… making absolutely no dent in actual sex trafficking?
Yeah… that tracks.
Just consider: If sex work were legal and not stigmatized, there wouldn’t be incels, which would rob the far-right of some of its most vigorous supporters.
I always thought reddit awards were stupid but this post makes we wish lemmy had a way to super upvote.
A companion chooses her own clients, that’s guild law. But physical appearance doesn’t matter so terribly, you look for a compatibility of spirit.
— Inara Serra
On top of all that, I wonder how much the types of backports they’re rooting for would be used to acquire the kind of material pedophiles are after. I mean kids will be kids either way and be stupid and the people that are after kiddie porn seem more likely the type of people to know their way around and stay hidden, because they’re literally predators. These backports will be abused by both “the legitimate” side and criminals, so wouldn’t having a “special key” to unlock your backdoor put your children in more danger, especially when you’re sleeping sound thinking you’re safe and therefore not worried about someone, “breaking in”. (Is it still breaking in if they have a fucking key?)
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I don’t really see your point. There would still be private communication, it would just not be private in the eyes of the law anymore. Wouldn’t make it easier for abusers to abuse.
Or did I just miss something?
- Backdoors in consumer software cannot in fact be restricted to “legitimate” use. All it takes is one “bad apple” to leak the keys – say, a radicalized police officer leaking them to a fascist group for use in harassing political opponents – and those keys show up on the darknet and are directly available to abusers. This is a much larger threat than (e.g.) traditional landline telephone wiretapping.
- If secure communication systems are made illegal, the organizations that build those systems (e.g. Signal) will shut down so as not to be prosecuted for “enabling child abuse”. This deprives their current users, including children, of the secure communication systems they are already using today.
- Sadly, law enforcement officers abuse their power quite often. They also have a higher rate of domestic abuse than the general population. Giving them power to spy on children’s communication is directly enabling abusers.
Fair points. Yet those backdoors already exist for a long time now (prism et al). There are alternatives which are, and probably will be safer with the new laws. Maybe illegal then, but safe®. Also there are always zerodays to purchase.
Whomever uses whatapp and other typical murican company-messengers (or whateever else) is already under surveillance. Maybe just no yet in the EU.
Not saying it can’t get worse. It sure could.
Thanks for making your point clearer.
You do realise data miners have been ripping WhatsApp to pieces to find traces of a back door for years right?
Nothing has ever come up.
I hate Meta as much as the next person, but when they say the messages are end to end encrypted they do mean it. Otherwise the backdoor would’ve certainly been found by now. Signal, iMessage and Telegram are the same.
Sure this isn’t true for anything like Twitter DMs but for the ones that are end to end encrypted nobody has found a backdoor.
You can’t be serious? WA got no US-Gov-backdoor? Yeah sure. I obviously can’t proove that they have, but i couldn’t think of a single reason why Meta and the likes shouldn’t neatly cooperate. Customers are sheeple anyway, they could name WA asshat-messenger and they’d still use it. They wouldn’t mind nor care. The gov (any gov) would surely show love.
Besides that it’s closed source. They say E2E. But can I verify?
So, you’re saying prism et al were just fakenews and govs don’t listen already? And it’s not just about those that really offer true, verifyable E2E?
Not that i would care about meta & the likes, i don’t use that shit, but I’d be glad if I’d be wrong.
Well. If you put a large glass window on the reinforced steel safe to make sure you can observe inside the safe. You can’t exactly expect criminals to not just smash window instantly to take everything instead of struggling to open the safe harder way.
Making master key is also not the approach that works because unlike physical keys, digital keys can be copied millions of times exactly without any flaw over miliseconds without requiring any specialized tool on site.
Not gonna lie the fighting pedophilia seems more of an excuse in order to read our messages!
Removed by mod
It worked, they just want even more access with less push back.
Or the “fighting drugs” argument either
“For the children!” legislation has never been for the children, and always has been pushing authoritarian laws that take away peoples power.
and they feel safe doing it, because they have the in built system of shutting down criticism and complaint with “Oh, so you DON’T want to protect the childrens? You DON’T want to stop them being sexually exploited?!”
That’s exactly what a criminal would say! /s
Wrong cause I have no problem if anyone see my mesajes it just bothers me that they can spy on you. Frankly if someone sees my messages they will either laugh their ass off of be traumatize by my memes. They will probably consider me a misogin, racist and whatever due to my sens of humor and I will probably get called by suicide prevention services due to my depression!
Pedophiles would be terminally stupid if they used common, commercial chat systems and social media. Those who survive have probably their own forums completely disconnected from commercial prying eyes.
So in the end they would only catch a handful of very stupid amateurs while trampling on the rights to privacy and confidentiality of all citizens.
It was never about fighting pedophilia lol, it’s about power.
And control, can’t forget that.
Control is power.
Power is control
confused in chainsaw man
For fighting pedos (or abusers in general) it would be way more helpful to fight it at the root, not the leafs.
But it’s just a marketing-phrase to kill privacy, not fight abuse…
So eliminate children?
Very Huxlarian.
Why, hello there Anakin.
yOu UnDeREsTiMaTe My PoWeR
classic “protecting the children” to do something terrible excuse
Does anybody but me remember top sites? Back in the day bootleggers would distribute and share ripped movies and albums on top sites for bootleggers to download and copy to disc or tape. Like. They didn’t use regular chats except to vet new people. They literally had their own chat networks. The same applies here. Like. Why do they think this will do anything much to make a dent in CP? We all know it won’t and it’s a poorly concealed attempt at destroying privacy laws.
deleted by creator
You want to fight pedophilia, cut of the trafficking network at the head.
Release the Epstein client list.
They won’t, this is how you know it’s not about pedophilia, it’s about further invasion of privacy and more monitoring of the peasants.
I think they’re just trying to pick the battles they can potentially win
I think they’re just trying to get reelected by eliciting primal emotions.
They could go after the Epstein people, but that would upset the (terrible)status quo.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
- Edward SnowdenI like Snowden as much as any terminally online person does, but I don’t think his quote is really the best as it supposes there are people with nothing to hide. Everyone has something to hide, if for no other reason than out of embarrassment.
There’s a reason why we close the bathroom door despite the fact that everyone knows we are taking a shit.
Absolutely. You don’t have to be a pedo or criminal or whatever to want privacy. We all want at least some level of privacy, and many people have an actual need for it.
I’m American, and we’ve had multiple similar efforts to destroy encryption “to protect the children”
In reality (and this is what they want) it will make it exponentially more dangerous for women needing abortions and LGBT people in dangerous situations. Journalists and confidential informants lose huge levels of the anonymity required to even investigate and report on things.
And don’t even start on the floodgates of espionage government agencies will do.
Recommended reading: Daniel J. Solove’s “A Taxonomy of Privacy” (2006).
Solove lays out sixteen different kinds of information privacy concerns – touching on topics including government surveillance, harassment by paparazzi, improper disclosure of medical information, false-light defamation, and even someone peeping on you in the bathroom.
Most of them have nothing to do with the person whose privacy is threatened having done anything wrong!
it supposes there are people with nothing to hide.
That’s exactly the opposite of what it supposes.
It’s saying that the people who make that argument, absolutely have things they want to keep private. Just like everyone has something to say.
deleted by creator
To put pressure on the countries and persuade them to vote ‘yes’, the European Commission placed these ads only in countries that did not want to vote for the law: Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands
So, a better title might be “Fighting privacy under the guise of fighting pedophelia: The EU rule that could break the internet”
The unfortunate brilliance of it is that there are master strategists and tacticians that understand how to pass thinly-veiled invasive legislation under some undeniably noble premise.
NYC started with speed cameras and red light cameras only near schools to “protect children.” Who wouldn’t support that? Every single government employee knew this was a long term play: capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere. The same with NYPD cameras and surveillance stations.
Start with something small and digestible to the public, then use it to substantiate the unpalatable.
Red light and speed cams everywhere just makes sense for traffic.
It really depends on who’s in charge of them. In many US cities, they were operated corruptly by agencies who dialed-down the yellow-light time to increase fines and raise revenue.
Okay that sucks. Still, traffic controls help make traffic more safe, and more stable.
And If more people are fined for breaking traffic laws, maybe they will learn it some time or just stop driving so much.
capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere
As traffic is usually the most dangerous thing any of us interact with on a regular basis, I propose that this result is actually a good thing.
It’s always “think of the children!” as the go to fascist propaganda
And it will probably happen. No one in power gives a fuck about logic and reason. It’s all about sending a signal. People don’t care about privacy but they don’t like pedos!
11 years ago, I attended a talk by Gottfrid Svartholm in Berlin. He told us that we have lost the internet. Pretty good foresight eh?
