[experimenting]

Good. If you don't have online child sexual abuse to hide, you have nothing to worry about, since for all the other things people do have to hide, such access will ignore that (up to direct threats to safety and national security concerns).

Criminals get easier access to online CSAM, then law enforcement should get easier access to user data. If you think that trade is unfair, take it up with the criminals.

[chimen]

I do send my mom photos with my 2yr old taking a bath or stuff like that. "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" - what a stupid argument. Letting criminals dictate the way I live sounds like such a wonderful idea. If you have nothing to hide can you post your credit card here?

[experimenting]

This is a discussion about bean soup recipes and you are telling me you don't like beans. Mediocre argument.

Be very careful with sharing explicit photos online. Your settings and encryption must be very strong, or people other than your mom may get access to it.

If these others then get investigated for child abuse, it should come out to the investigators that they joined a semi-private Facebook group and have access to beach photos of children. Their credit card number also should show up in registering for CSAM forums.

It is a wonderful idea to protect you and your family by taking precautions. Lock your doors. Don't accept requests from people you don't know, educate your mother on online security, and think long and hard about if it is worth it to send your mother a picture of your naked child, for there is a possibility this will end up everywhere.

Everyone has something to hide and to worry about:

> It came in 2003 when Townshend, now 74, was arrested for using his credit card to access a website offering child pornography, though no images were downloaded.

> Rock star Pete Townshend reveals today how his arrest on child pornography charges saved his life after it indirectly led him to discover he had cancer.

[jacooper]

No, I have much to worry about. I dont want people to read my private conversations, private photos and anything i don't want to be public.

They can catche them without such stupid measures, that will make any secure communication impossible for the masses.

[experimenting]

I am fine with people (especially if they are licensed professionals) reading my private conversations and photos, but I worry about people (especially licensed law enforcement) accessing my data on online child abuse.

We can not always get what we want.

Instead, we entrust the police a monopoly on violence, physical detainment, and violation of privacy, and hold them accountable if they can be shown to disregard their duty and responsibilities. As a civilian, your duty is to weigh your personal sense of discomfort against the societal benefits of improved child abuse detection.

[kbelder]

>As a civilian, your duty is to weigh your personal sense of discomfort against the societal benefits of improved child abuse detection.

No. Not your personal sense of discomfort... this isn't a case of privileging one person's selfishness versus the whole world. You have to weigh the harm to _all_ of society from loss of privacy, against the societal benefits of improved child abuse detection.

Including the future harm to those children as they live their lives with lost privacy.

[experimenting]

You have a social contract signed by you. Worry about you. The government gets to worry about harm to all of society from loss of privacy.

Civilians are not supposed to worry about future children as they live their lives with abuse. They get too emotional.

[ben_w]

During the Cold War, everyone had spies in the other side.

Russia is certainly still trying that now (I assume the US is too, but haven't heard of it recently).

Giving any group legit access to this risks those spies having a convenient and easy way to find anyone with dirty laundry (even mild, legal stuff), and blackmail them into helping the spies.

This problem still exists even if we don't have the system for legit access, I'm only saying an official system makes it worse.

We still have to alter our societies so that nobody has anything secret to be ashamed of. This necessarily means making society radically more transparent, and I think the only way this is possible is to also make society radically more inclusive and tolerant. Why also tolerant? Because I've heard people typically commit 3 felonies a day (don't trust random factoids), and at that rate transparency without liberty turns the whole nation into a prison.

[experimenting]

Blackmail and coersion of civilian assets for intelligence work is both possible and a risk.

But it won't happen though an Interpol investigation and leave a formal audit trail.

It is just turning "think of the children!" into "think of the sexual blackmail!".

[ben_w]

Given the LOVEINT that we only found out about because of Snowden, given the sexual blackmail used to coerce gay people during the Cold War, and given rule 34, I fully expect officially sanctioned mechanisms to be abused in this way.