[lostdev]

> “It is hugely disappointing that Meta is choosing to roll out end-to-end encryption on Facebook Messenger. They have an important responsibility to keep children safe on their platform and sadly, this will no longer be possible."

I think you mean... “It is hugely disappointing that Meta is stopping us from spying on their users."

[ben_w]

I don't trust Meta or the UK government and its agencies, so it's quite possible for both sides to be technically correct while also utterly misleading.

[Zenst]

The whole "think of the children" excuse wears after a while when you ponder - what about the adults, weaker encryption leaves them vulnerable to hackers/scammers..etc. But the whole aspect of weaker encryption is a risk to children has to be one of the most redactor-ad-absurdum things of government that has over-run its credibility.

[beej71]

> what about the adults, weaker encryption leaves them vulnerable to hackers/scammers

... And children!

Even worse, having the government monitor your communications _destroys your life_.[1]

These proposals by governments are effectively saying, "We're going to protect your children using this technique that completely fucks them up."

Child abuse is one of the most horrific things there is. It's only second to even now horrific things things like let's let the government monitor everything all the children say.

[1] "Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law", as US residents should be well aware.

[LightHugger]

People also seem to just be completely unaware of first degree price discrimination. Ones communication logs can be used against literally every human being on earth whether or not one has "anything to hide".

There is nobody who is "safe" from a company jacking up the prices of every product you see because you mentioned getting your paycheck in a message. Even if you don't say it directly, it can be implied from your general behavior using the same messages.

[sgift]

Not even a day until "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" .. probably not even a second. One could just write an auto answer script by now. Parse news headlines and the moment something with end-to-end encryption pops up. "Agency foo is very sad that <whoever> chose this step. <whoever> has an important responsibility to keep children safe and sadly, this will no longer be possible. We are so disappointed. So, so disappointed." .. and so on.

[mytailorisrich]

Nothing is black and white.

E2E encryption is a big headache for legitimate law enforcement. We've seen it with Encrochat.

[multjoy]

Encrochat wasn't E2E, which is why the Dutch were able to get all up in their servers.

[mytailorisrich]

Exactly.

It was a big issue but they still manage to get in, with difficulties. Now, E2E encryption is much harder to crack if possible at all. You probably need to compromise each specific phone/computer/app you're interested in.

[multjoy]

Encrochat is a funny example - WhatsApp and Signal were widely available at the time and were entirely secure.

Encro was a home-brewed system that pretended to be more than it was while the target market would have been much better off with an up-to-date stock android or iPhone handset + Signal and basic security awareness. The vulnerability around the handset is certainly significantly less than whatever cobbled together android distro they were using, and if the messages are on the handset then they are always vulnerable to recovery.

[Turing_Machine]

> E2E encryption is a big headache for legitimate law enforcement.

So is the requirement to have a warrant before barging into someone's house at 0300 with guns and dogs.

So is the requirement to allow the accused to confer with an attorney.

So is the prohibition on using torture to extract confessions.

And?

The world doesn't exist for the convenience of "legitimate law enforcement", or shouldn't, anyway.

[mytailorisrich]

Your comment is obviously disingenuous.

You are comparing apples and oranges for dramatic purposes.

Of course police need a warrant e.g. to wiretap but that becomes moot if the wiretap is impossible for technical reasons. That is the whole issue here.

[Turing_Machine]

> Your comment is obviously disingenuous.

It is "obviously" nothing of the sort.

[Turing_Machine]

To elaborate:

You're allowed to have curtains, no matter how inconvenient that makes it for police who want to look through your windows.

[driverdan]

Good.