[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.