Should encryption be curbed to combat child abuse?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57050689

by u801e • 5 years ago

20 66 5 years ago

bbc.com

smabie• 5 years ago

No. That was easy!

getcrunk• 5 years ago

Should the free movement of people outside their houses be curbed to combat child abuse/drug trafficking/burglary

thaumasiotes2• 5 years ago

While child abuse and drug trafficking were presumably not concerns, ancient Chinese cities really did implement a curfew for commoners. It was a sign of status to own a house which opened directly onto the street (making you immune to the curfew).

rektide3• 5 years ago

to what ends was this implemented? general public peace? or largely a demonstration of biopower, control?

such exercises of dominion over the population sometimes seem like justifiable steps, necessities. but whether such justifications seem or more chiefly remain plausible...

m463• 5 years ago

You forgot terrorism. hmmm, and viruses.

cvwright3• 5 years ago

This is worse. This is like curbing door locks to combat burglary.

Like, the cops know there have been burglaries, so now everyone must leave their house open so it can be inspected for stolen goods.

It’s that stupid.

anoncake• 5 years ago

Don't worry: Children are generally considered less important than 80 year olds.

carabiner• 5 years ago

No, I will not think of the children.

snarf21• 5 years ago

Isn't that the rule? If a headline has a question, the answer is always NO!

orev• 5 years ago

Betteridge’s law of headlines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

falcolas7• 5 years ago

Wouldn’t it better to prevent procreation? No children, no child abuse. Cant even hide abuse that doesn’t exist by keeping off the internet with it.

Makes about as much sense as banning encryption to prevent abuse.

So long as deviant minds exist, child abuse will exist. Even if you could perfectly prosecute all transmissions of the resulting artifacts.

antisol3• 5 years ago

OMG what an excellent suggestion! Banning encryption won't stop all child abuse but this totally sensible measure is guaranteed to do just that! You, sir (or madam), are a genius!

The only question in my mind now is whether we should kill all the children out there today or just sterilise everybody.

If we don't kill them, some of them might be abused between now and the time they reach adulthood. So it's pretty obvious to me that for the sake of the children we should kill all the children. It's really the only logical conclusion.

Won't somebody please think of the children! (and kill them)

quickthrowman• 5 years ago

No, but children should have mandatory body cams installed at birth and removed at adulthood. They’re overwhelmingly likely to be abused by family or a close family friend, and permanent body cams would curb child sex abuse.

Wolfenstein98k• 5 years ago

I hate this issue.

The answer is "yes", but in practice the question isn't that simple.

The use of a technology by criminals should not necessarily mean the technology needs to be curbed.

Insofar as we know criminals are using it, I'd ask "how" - and can we innovate on the law enforcement side without unnecessarily interfering with the lives of civilians?

SV_BubbleTime• 5 years ago

The answer is “no” and no. And any cases made for yes are in every time I’ve seen it, as short sighted as could be.

hprotagonist• 5 years ago

Begging the question, much?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-enforcement-accessing-locked...

jMyles2• 5 years ago

No, to the contrary, end-to-end encryption is crucial for protecting children.

https://blog.nucypher.com/todays-kids-need-end-to-end-encryp...

cvwright3• 5 years ago

This is 100% the argument that pro-encryption people should be making everywhere.

Think of the children. Encrypt their data!

cvwright3• 5 years ago

end-to-end encryption is crucial for protecting children.

A brazenly shameless plug for something that I'm trying to build to do exactly that:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cvwright/circles-a-secu...

jMyles2• 5 years ago

Heck yeah man. This is cool. Thanks for taking this challenge seriously.

underseacables• 5 years ago

Should encryption be be curbed to combat human trafficking? Murder? Terrorism? Child abuse is a crime like any other, curbing encryption will not stop it, and would probably systemically make other non-emotional issues worse.

falcolas7• 5 years ago

You know what, sure. Let's do that.

Let's destroy the entirety of online commerce.

Let's destroy the ability to digitally prove identities of corporations and people.

Let's eliminate the security and integrity of every computer system.

Let's expose every company that uses a network to connect its computers together to hackers.

Let's eliminate every viable form of DRM (actually, I'm kinda OK with that one).

Let's destroy the entire concept of proof of work.

Sure, let's "curb" encryption.

gruez• 5 years ago

Let's destroy the entire concept of proof of work.

Some HNers would unironically support that.

actually_a_dog• 5 years ago

Sure, I would. Bitcoin proves that proof of work is unsustainable and uses too much energy.

contravariant2• 5 years ago

Pretty sure curbing encryption would break proof of stake as well though.

contravariant2• 5 years ago

DRM isn't encryption just obfuscation.

falcolas7• 5 years ago

HDCP. An encrypted stream with a pre-shared key, designed to prevent the interception of video and audio streams over HDMI cables.

Even DVDs data streams are encrypted, which is why the release of that magic number (AKA a pre-shared key) is such a big thing.

legutierr• 5 years ago

Even non-PoW cryptocurrencies depend on cryptographic signatures to verify and authorize state transitions on the blockchain (including value transfer). You can't have a public distributed ledger without public-key cryptography.

falcolas7• 5 years ago

I'm realizing I should have said "Merkle tree" instead. But, opportunity lost.

schoen3• 5 years ago

I spent years campaigning on this issue, and I fundamentally don't think that this broad argument will work against measures that encryption opponents are likely to propose today.

There was certainly a time when governments opposed availability to the general public of transport encryption and VPNs. Some outliers still do, especially the PRC (when the other endpoint is outside the national territory).

But this isn't a mainstream position of governments in liberal democracies today. They generally accept and even promote the use and availability of encryption technology for transport encryption, authentication, and digital signatures. (Some of this may be due to political calculation either in the sense of "it would be too hard to successfully restrict these applications" or "we've decided we think the positives outweigh the negatives".) The remaining campaigns are mostly about device encryption and about end-to-end encryption for messaging.

Government agencies campaigning about those mostly think that app stores and software distribution are centralized enough that they could enforce backdoor/exceptional access rules against a few large technology companies and cover the huge majority of civilian applications. It doesn't feel like they're wrong about that these days, does it?

(Some recent laws which have already been enacted in certain jurisdictions only kick in when a company has a specified number of users in a particular territory. The enforcement mechanism is typically fines or blocking, or in some cases the threat of arrest of local company representatives, who may also be explicitly required to exist.)

falcolas7• 5 years ago

I read the article, which mirrors your points. And what I'm seeing is a bunch of politicians who are ignoring reality for politicial points, using their favorite horsemen of the Infosec apocalypse.

Breaking, excuse me, backdooring encryption (including MITM attacks) breaks the trust model which makes our modern devices, communication, and commerce (which fundamentally relies on secure communication between verified parties) work.

It doesn't feel like they're wrong about that these days, does it?

If you mean they can/should force companies to break encryption - yes, yes they are. Period.

erostrate• 5 years ago

What they are wrong about is that backdoors would only be "exceptionally used". It might be that way for a couple of years, then there will be a terrorist attack or a major child abuse scandal, new laws will be passed eroding legal protections, and before you know it any random official will be happily looking into your private conversations.

Think I'm exaggerating? This has already happened in the UK, RIPA bill was passed to "fight terrorism and child abuse" and ended up used by local officials to identify people who let their dog shit on the sidewalk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Po...

mr_toad• 5 years ago

and cover the huge majority of civilian applications

And only a minority of criminal applications.

Only stupid criminals will use compromised applications. Smart criminals will use other methods.

matheusmoreira5• 5 years ago

No.

threatofrain• 5 years ago

"The reality is end-to-end encryption will drastically reduce the amount of CSAM material reported to authorities," Mr Bason tells the BBC. "To me, the trade-off is not worth it."

The software firm created by Brian Bason:

https://www.bark.us/

matheusmoreira5• 5 years ago

Bark's affordable, award-winning dashboard proactively monitors text messages, YouTube, emails, and 30+ different social networks for potential safety concerns, so busy parents can save time and gain peace of mind.

Looks like end-to-end encryption is a direct threat to his business.

tacker2000• 5 years ago

It’s really baffling how clueless these lawmakers (still) are when it comes to technology… but they just might not care and are just trying to push some new surveillance agenda again…

paperwasp42• 5 years ago

The majority of child abuse isn't filmed or transmitted. Therefore, if the goal is truly to reduce child abuse, the best law would be to remove front doors and make house walls out of glass. By allowing others to look into your home and listen to your conversations, they can verify that no abuse is occurring, and easily collect evidence when it does occur.

Don't like that idea? Why? It's not like you have anything to hide, right? You're a stand-up, law-abiding citizen. So what does it matter if people can look inside your home and listen to your private conversations?

^ This is the argument I use whenever someone says they think encryption should be ended. I think because digital data isn't physical, and therefore doesn't feel intimate, people's immediate reaction is, "Only criminals who have something to hide would want encryption!" When you add a tangible, physical element to the conversation--a conversation taking place within a house with doors and walls--suddenly people understand why even "harmless" conversations deserve privacy and respect, and why non-criminals would be pro-encryption.

cscurmudgeon• 5 years ago

By allowing others to look into your home and listen to your conversations, they can verify that no abuse is occurring, and easily collect evidence when it does occur.

CPS can do that if they have a warrant.

bronzeage• 5 years ago

That's a clear strawman. There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation. There are also restrictions of police investigations by law, requiring warrant, and other stuff that are the real way you're supposed to be protected from the government.

The real problem is that while some western government have rule of law and can be relatively expected to be just, other governments are not, and it's bad setting the precedent of government intervention because many non western governments can't be trusted with it.

matheusmoreira5• 5 years ago

It's not like the government and its numberless agencies care about warrants when it comes to violating people's digital privacy. They just take whatever they want and ask questions later. Cryptography is essentially digital self-defense and is absolutely necessary.

If the authorities want data they should have to physically seize the device containing it and hope it's not encrypted.

rektide3• 5 years ago

I think you are wrong.

There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation.

if the government gets to decide whenever it feels like if you have (or had) privacy, you have none.

this isn't a case of just vs unjust governments. there is a large extant question of a more fundamental individual right, of whether a human is allowed privacy, or whether their home is expected to be able to tell on them when the man comes & asks it.

there are huge massive reactionary negative afraid forces & fearmongers out there who will use any extremist cases they can get their hands upon to shrill-ly cry that we must do something, that we must protect some vulnerable people or defend against some predator. some are sincere. most are shallow, lying, disinformationing propoganda agents, waging a war of opinions to justify the intrusion & disruption they ulteriorly seek. some are honest at least with themselves about this deception, but others simply let themselves be blown into their extremist beliefs, let their fears take them over.

privacy is not real when it's decided upon ex post facto, at the convenience of the nation. no matter the nation.

antisol3• 5 years ago

This is not an invalid criticism.

But, on the other hand, I really really like the analogy. It illustrates some of the issues very clearly.

Maybe a slight improvement on the analogy would be to say "install video cameras in every room of your house" rather than "make the walls out of glass".

thefz• 5 years ago

There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation.

This is valid only if we assume a perfect government with no hidden interests, perfect government actors with no personal motive and only for those non citizen-hostile governments, like dictatorships.

throw0101a• 5 years ago

Reminder:

8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?"
like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

* https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/cryp...

matheusmoreira5• 5 years ago

Yes, it's extremely tiresome seeing people summon those same boogeymen over and over. It's gotten to the point I assume anyone who even mentions those things has an agenda to push.

pengaru• 5 years ago

No.

postalrat• 5 years ago

Should procreation be curbed to combat child abuse?

aaron-santos2• 5 years ago

The state won't blanket ban encryption because it's useful to the operation of companies. The way I see it going down is by asking these questions:

Who will have access to encryption (the privilege of security)?

and

Who gets to decide who has access to encryption?

The state can take away voting rights, gun rights, right to movement, right to serve on a jury, right to public benefits, and the right to parental benefits. Why shouldn't the state also assume it has the ability to decide who has access to the right of security through encryption? If actual momentum builds toward reducing encryption access, expect to see ex-felons being forbade security. Who will object?

matheusmoreira5• 5 years ago

They cannot restrict anything unless they end computing freedom first.

aaron-santos2• 5 years ago

They can certainly criminalize encryption for individuals. Criminalization is orthogonal to restriction.

lowbloodsugar• 5 years ago

It is important that any discussion that leads with "think of the children" is immediately turned into "Yes, let's think of the children. Here is a four point plan to address poverty, systemic racism, education and opportunity..."

"Oh, but this is free and those things cost billions of pounds!" Actually no, this is not free. This prevents protecting banking. It prevents protecting oil pipelines. The cost of breakable encryption is billions or trillions.

My brother spent several years doing legal aid in the UK, and my mum is on children's panels. There's plenty the government can do to reduce child abuse that doesn't involve encryption, but it chooses not to.

So here we have one group that is looking at a visual evidence of child abuse, and determining that we should not have encryption because then we wont have visual evidence of child abuse - as if child abuse started in 1993. Another that runs a business which makes the claim of having identified hundreds of child predators and informed the FBI - with no fact checking from the BBC or presumption of innocence or linking to other stories of AI bias...

Meanwhile, there are no social workers. No teachers. No opportunity besides crime. And is killing a kid child abuse? What if the kid is black, and the police did it?

Here's the test: sure, government, here's a list of things you can do to stop child abuse. Encryption is last on the list. You can get to that after you've addresses all the other, vastly larger, problems.

WarOnPrivacy• 5 years ago

Child abuse survivor here. I'd like to review some history.

For the entire history of police, until 1990 or so, children who had experienced abuse knew to not go to the police. It wasn't worth getting gaslighted or worse. In no way were cops there for us. Not only did we know it, so did abusers.

What changed? Sounding klaxons over child abuse began to draw press attention - then political power and fat budgets for LEO and NGOs. Once abused children became a sure path to the cash and power, police leadership and politicians suddenly cared like they never, ever had before.

This anti-encryption farce is no different. Damaged kids are the means to their ends - for LEO to acquire even more new surveillance powers along with the stacks of cash needed to deploy them - and as virtue-flags for politicians to wave before uncritical voters.

Those of us who were hurt before it was profitable to care - we aren't a fan of seeing kids' pain traded like a commodity.

senectus1• 5 years ago

I have young kids. No.

nabilhat• 5 years ago

We already know that missing or incompetently configured encryption exists, we see IoT stories about this all the time, and we already see news stories when the occasional internet creep gets caught peering into the encryption-unencumbered private lives of friends, classmates, colleagues, or strangers. This is already a problem which we can readily point to as reason not to exponentially increase the number of peepholes already on the internet. Sure, it might solve the end-to-end encrypted sharing of that content - by flooding the supply so much that there's no point.

motohagiography• 5 years ago

These morbid people do not have a moral leg to stand on when it comes to encryption. The article itself is a plant to gauge public opinion and has nothing to do with news, public interest, or facts, and these people should be ashamed at selling themselves for some tawdry publicity to be used as a political windvane.

mbrodersen• 5 years ago

Should parenting be curbed to combat child abuse? Should kindergartens be curbed to combat child abuse? Should it be illegal for woman with children to remarry to curve child abuse? Should cars be illegal to curbe accidents? I could go on ...

Should encryption be curbed to combat child abuse?

Related Stories