[quitit]

Sounds like we should just rename encryption to "child protection".

So politicians need to "remove child protection" in order to get their way.

(Yes I'm being glib, but it's possible to short circuit this kind of thinking. The USA have already realised that you can pass any shitty bill just by shoe horning an acronym that spells something like EAGLE or FREEDOM.)

[thomastjeffery]

Glib or not, that is the right way to look at the issue.

Children need privacy in order to be safe, just like everyone else does.

[TechBro8615]

Children need parents who care about them and protect them while they grow up in the world, whether that means a mother in 1923 keeping her kid away from the brothel, or in 2023 keeping him away from internet porn. It's the job of parents, not government, to protect their children.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Sadly, I am inclined to agree despite hating myself for relying on ways to generate effective propaganda. The only way to deal with this is to create a counter narrative. Seriously, just the other day, I had someone mention talking point #1, #2 to political issue X like they were reciting it. It is annoying, but if that is the default state already..

[thomastjeffery]

There is no reason to hate yourself. This is morally right ground. Children need privacy protections. That isn't just a counter-narrative: it's a deep and direct criticism of the narrative that says we should dismantle privacy to protect children.

If an effort to protect children also endangers children, then that effort is not worthy of implementation.

Narratives are not limited to "how we share ideas", but also "how we contextualize them".

If you haven't heard the counter narrative we are proposing, then you may not be aware of the way encryption backdoors endanger children. It's important for us to share that context as narrative.

[mind-blight]

Do you have sources that describes some of the specifics with how weakening encryption endangers children?

I've been emailing back and forth with proponents of this law (working on getting access to someone who has mild influence in Parliament). They've been asking for sources that aren't just my own knowledge and experience, and framing how this bill also harms children would be extremely helpful

[thomastjeffery]

Of the top of my head, I would recommend Cory Doctorow. He's put a lot of effort into activism in this space.

[angelbar]

What protects children is communication with their parents, not that third parties can read their messages

[lostlogin]

If parents could be made decent humans, a large portion of the abuse would be solved.

I don’t support weakened encryption, but parents are very much part of the problem.