[webdelv]

> "We want social media companies to confirm they will not implement end-to-end encryption until they have the technology in place to ensure children will not be put at greater risk as a result."

Most of these companies already know the users birthday, if this is only about child abuse then instead of adding backdoors for everyone, why not just disable end to end encryption conversations for users under 16?

[brippalcharrid]

Doesn't that open up a whole new can of worms, though, because it would require the operator of every service to check the age (and by extension, identity) of every user of their service, so as not to inadvertently E2EE the communications of a child? Passing off this verification to a Trusted Third Party (wink wink) is just as bad (probably worse), because you would be make it even easier for the government to tie it into a̶ ̶s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶ whatever they have planned for the next stage.

[webdelv]

If a child wants to be "protected" online then it would be up to them to enter their actual age. But you are right, the government will take any excuse to get users verifying their age.

[jMyles]

> why not just disable end to end encryption conversations for users under 16

That is the cohort that _most_ needs end-to-end encryption.

https://blog.nucypher.com/todays-kids-need-end-to-end-encryp...

[easrng]

Almost everyone <18 lies about their age on the internet. I have clicked through uncountably many age gates.

[denton-scratch]

They already reject users who say they are under 13. How well has that been working out?