[grrywlsn]

I’d argue their attempts at having a plan for CSAM were preempting these exact types of arguments being made in bad faith by governments like the UK, who are actively engaging children’s charities to give their goal of breaking e2ee have some emotional societal weight.

[camhart]

CSAM is a real problem. Its not merely emotional weight.

[JohnFen]

Of course. But that emotional weight is very often cynically used in order to get people to go along with things they consider unacceptable.

[camhart]

I understand your argument, and I appreciate it. The same could be said of of the "other side" of this argument though. The "government will spy on you!"--is also emotional weight cynically being used to get people to go along with technical solutions that support CSAM.

I'd argue society would generally agree CSAM is unacceptable and we're allowing it right now. Many are quick to adopt the assumption that this law is an intentional and cleverly designed "attack on our rights to e2ee", as fact. If one can't recognize it's at least a poor attempt to balance the right to privacy with protecting kids, then I struggle to see how they're being honest with themselves.

I'm not arguing this law proposes the correct solution that should be adopted. I'm not arguing the surveillance state isn't licking their chops. I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise.

It's also wrong and harmful to attribute motive based on assumptions. While you haven't done this, many others have. Instead of taking part in a constructive debate by arguing specific points, they try to paint a false motive on the opposition. "it's just so they can spy on you!" is roughly equivalent to "you view CSAM and that's why you don't want to protect our kids". These approaches are not how you reach a good solution that balances both sides of the argument. They're just throwing the oppositions legitimate concerns under the bus.

I'd also add, while e2ee is strong, unless you're verifying and compiling all the code you run on your device yourself, Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. I assume the bar to snoop on someone would most likely be lowered if laws like this are passed. But it's still technically possible (and likely happens).

[JohnFen]

> I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise.

Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though.

> Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law.

Absolutely. Not only can they, but they do.

[camhart]

> Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though.

How is equating CSAM to (merely) emotional weight not doing that?

[Al0neStar]

CSAM does carry emotional weight. Your entire argument is that since privacy measures are already loose then its okay to make them looser for "the children".

[ghnws]

AFAIK the app code can be decompiled to see what it does. The messaging can be monitored as well. I find it hard to believe these apps could sneak in something that breaks the encryption without anyone noticing.

The proposed solution to stopping child porn from being shared on these platforms would at most only do just that: Stop sharing on these specific apps. There are plenty of alternatives including encrypted zips, TOR etc. Breaking e2ee in WhatsApp would not do anything to stop sharing the material.

I don't think it's a leap to question why this is proposed when it could never achieve it's intended goal.

[camhart]

If the update is targeted at a single individual, it's almost guaranteed to go undetected.

Yes you can decompile code. But reverse engineering is time intensive (I've done it). And these code bases are huge. It wouldn't be difficult to obfuscate some element of the code so it's difficult to detect. Especially if it's rarely triggered.

> The proposed solution to stopping child porn from being shared on these platforms would at most only do just that: Stop sharing on these specific apps. There are plenty of alternatives including encrypted zips, TOR etc. Breaking e2ee in WhatsApp would not do anything to stop sharing the material.

There is value in introducing barriers, even when imperfect. You must admit that, otherwise the fact that Google/Apple can ship an OS update whenever they want negates the entire argument in favor of e2ee.

Also, just FYI encrypted zips are easily brute forced.

[ghnws]

You can not even bruteforce an AES-128 encrypted zip, let alone 7z or rar with stronger algorithms. (Given a decent length password obviously)

> There is value in introducing barriers, even when imperfect.

Not when they are completely ineffective and introduce other issues.

[BLKNSLVR]

> give their goal of breaking e2ee have some emotional societal weight.

Breaking E2EE is their goal. CSAM is the McGuffin.

[cabalamat]

>CSAM is a real problem.

It's is not nearly as big a problem as states wanting to oppress people.

[causality0]

Right. I don't think people realize there is no such thing as a free lunch. Having something, in this case a free society, means making a tradeoff. The dials on safety, happiness, and freedom cannot all be at 100 percent at the same time, and it is far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that even the tiniest bit of safety is worth a huge amount of freedom in exchange.

[andrei_says_]

Well, it’s a well-designed trap carefully constructed to have the strongest possible effects on our lizard brains.

Maybe there are ways to check our governments’ true commitment to safety in multiple areas and draw conclusions?

Environmental protection (we live in a period of climate collapse)? Food safety (sugar industry controlling legislation etc.)? Weapon licensing? Access to healthcare services and life-saving medications like insulin? Healthcare and social services for mothers and young children? Preferring diplomacy to aggression and acts of destabilization in politics?

Looking at all of this I conclude that, sadly, our governments don’t seem to care much about our or our children’s safety.

Looking at the efforts politicians put into staying into power and acting on personal or corruption-driven agendas… we’re not in great shape and I have the feeling that there may be some manipulation going on with intention to disrupt organizing, personal privacy, and the ability of individuals to communicate without being surveilled.

All authoritarian governments absolutely hate that - for reasons having nothing to do with the safety of their citizens.

[mikestew]

I don’t believe that anyone is saying that it isn’t. That doesn’t preclude the government from preventing a “real problem” going to waste.

[Al0neStar]

CSAM has nothing to do with encryption and it predates the internet.

https://youtu.be/aAeUeG-PTD0

[lost_tourist]

There is some overlap, since you can't do a CSAM scan on properly encrypted data. It is not completely separate in a modern context of what is going on with IT.

[yieldcrv]

Can your elaborate on your trigger here?

Why did you feel that the phrasing minimized it enough to miss the point?

[bee_rider]

I don’t read their comment as particularly triggered, but if you honestly think they were triggered by a reference to CSAM, this is a wildly inappropriate question to ask.

In general I think it is better to not project some emotional reading onto other people’s posts.

[yieldcrv]

still don't get it, is this one of those things I'll magically be attuned to if I become a parent (but only maybe?), or does it require personal experience? or is there anything I can read about

[kemayo]

It is bad when children are abused.

Many (most?) people feel this viscerally, regardless of personal experience of parenthood or of abuse. This why the "think of the children" rhetorical gambit works.

In general, people like to believe in fairness, and dislike it when bad things happen to those who can't be said to "deserve" it somehow. Thus child abuse is more universally reviled than the rape of adults, because it's a lot harder to justify a child "deserving" that. (See also: kicking a friendly dog as a way to show off that a fictional villain is irredeemable.)

For a non-sexual example, remember how the pictures in this article provoked a surprising upswing in horror amongst even very anti-refugee people? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/shocking-image...

[themitigating]

Has their been some massive increase in the amount of child abuse to justify the new paranoia I see in the media and with new laws? Perhaps a certain political party is taking advantage of parents who, let's face it, are emotional and paranoid themselves. Parents by nature operate more selfishly than others and that includes the freedom of the people around them

[bee_rider]

Generally “triggered” is used to describe the recall of previous traumatic experiences, i.e,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger

So it is obvious why somebody wouldn’t ask for more details on that sort of thing, right?

Maybe you are just using it to ask why they are annoyed, and weren’t aware of the specific definition that phrase?

[yieldcrv]

People have definitely diluted the word trigger, and it is impossible to tell the difference between someone referencing a traumatic experience or something akin to annoyance or being distracted. 'Triggered my anxiety' where anxiety is also diluted to 'something I would prefer not to deal with'.

In this case, it seemed like the phrasing was enough to distract them from a discussion that didnt need to be derailed

[adamsbriscoe]

Wait. Are you saying you don't get why some people may be bothered by sexual crimes against innocent children? Am I misinterpreting your post ?

Edit-- I'll happily take the down vote on this, I understand the policy of extending charitable interpretation But I am genuinely confused which is why I asked for clarification, it was not rhetorical.

[shapefrog]

Can your elaborate on your trigger here?

Was it someone daring to suggest that molesting a 3 year old is actually bad, like really bad?

[deelowe]

It is inappropriate to ask someone about their trigger in such contexts. Why would you expect someone to go into details on past traumas like this?

[themitigating]

If they are using their experience to advocate for changes that affect me then they should justify it

[deelowe]

Justification wasn't requested. Elaborating on their "trigger" was. Again, this is abhorrent. No one should be required to go into details about being sexually assaulted as a means of "justification."