[danbruc]

To add to this, there is probably a huge spectrum, from people secretly taking pictures of naked children at the beach which you might never even become aware of to yearlong abuse and rape. And one should not lump them together to get to get a big number of cases and then pretend they are all of the worst kind.

Also the decision is not a dichotomy between complete surveillance of all communication and doing nothing at all, there are other measures that can be taken additionally or alternatively. So the proper measure is the additional utility of banning end-to-end encryption over all the other things you can reasonably do, not over not doing anything at all.

[robertlagrant]

> the decision is not a dichotomy between complete surveillance of all communication and doing nothing at all

The problem is that from a security perspective, it sort of is all or nothing.

[danbruc]

You misunderstood me, I did not want to say that you can have some partial end-to-end encryption, I meant that not outlawing end-to-end encryption does not mean that you do or can do nothing against illegal content, i.e. there are other ways to fight this problem besides outlawing end-to-end encryption.

[robertlagrant]

Oh! Hah. The exact opposite of what I thought you meant, then :)