• fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    179
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Taking away privacy makes it easier for children to be abused.

    Remember, the most likely abusers of children are not strangers off the Internet; they’re people who have authority over those children: parents, church leaders, teachers, coaches, police, etc.

    Private online communication makes it easier for abused children to get help.

    In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.

      So no different than all these laws that (supposedly) “stop sex trafficking” which only exist to clamp down on sex work while… drumroll… making absolutely no dent in actual sex trafficking?

      Yeah… that tracks.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just consider: If sex work were legal and not stigmatized, there wouldn’t be incels, which would rob the far-right of some of its most vigorous supporters.

        • deafboy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          A companion chooses her own clients, that’s guild law. But physical appearance doesn’t matter so terribly, you look for a compatibility of spirit.

          — Inara Serra

    • brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      On top of all that, I wonder how much the types of backports they’re rooting for would be used to acquire the kind of material pedophiles are after. I mean kids will be kids either way and be stupid and the people that are after kiddie porn seem more likely the type of people to know their way around and stay hidden, because they’re literally predators. These backports will be abused by both “the legitimate” side and criminals, so wouldn’t having a “special key” to unlock your backdoor put your children in more danger, especially when you’re sleeping sound thinking you’re safe and therefore not worried about someone, “breaking in”. (Is it still breaking in if they have a fucking key?)

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really see your point. There would still be private communication, it would just not be private in the eyes of the law anymore. Wouldn’t make it easier for abusers to abuse.

      Or did I just miss something?

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago
        1. Backdoors in consumer software cannot in fact be restricted to “legitimate” use. All it takes is one “bad apple” to leak the keys – say, a radicalized police officer leaking them to a fascist group for use in harassing political opponents – and those keys show up on the darknet and are directly available to abusers. This is a much larger threat than (e.g.) traditional landline telephone wiretapping.
        2. If secure communication systems are made illegal, the organizations that build those systems (e.g. Signal) will shut down so as not to be prosecuted for “enabling child abuse”. This deprives their current users, including children, of the secure communication systems they are already using today.
        3. Sadly, law enforcement officers abuse their power quite often. They also have a higher rate of domestic abuse than the general population. Giving them power to spy on children’s communication is directly enabling abusers.
        • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair points. Yet those backdoors already exist for a long time now (prism et al). There are alternatives which are, and probably will be safer with the new laws. Maybe illegal then, but safe®. Also there are always zerodays to purchase.

          Whomever uses whatapp and other typical murican company-messengers (or whateever else) is already under surveillance. Maybe just no yet in the EU.

          Not saying it can’t get worse. It sure could.

          Thanks for making your point clearer.

          • thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You do realise data miners have been ripping WhatsApp to pieces to find traces of a back door for years right?

            Nothing has ever come up.

            I hate Meta as much as the next person, but when they say the messages are end to end encrypted they do mean it. Otherwise the backdoor would’ve certainly been found by now. Signal, iMessage and Telegram are the same.

            Sure this isn’t true for anything like Twitter DMs but for the ones that are end to end encrypted nobody has found a backdoor.

            • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can’t be serious? WA got no US-Gov-backdoor? Yeah sure. I obviously can’t proove that they have, but i couldn’t think of a single reason why Meta and the likes shouldn’t neatly cooperate. Customers are sheeple anyway, they could name WA asshat-messenger and they’d still use it. They wouldn’t mind nor care. The gov (any gov) would surely show love.

              Besides that it’s closed source. They say E2E. But can I verify?

              So, you’re saying prism et al were just fakenews and govs don’t listen already? And it’s not just about those that really offer true, verifyable E2E?

              Not that i would care about meta & the likes, i don’t use that shit, but I’d be glad if I’d be wrong.

      • Isycius@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well. If you put a large glass window on the reinforced steel safe to make sure you can observe inside the safe. You can’t exactly expect criminals to not just smash window instantly to take everything instead of struggling to open the safe harder way.

        Making master key is also not the approach that works because unlike physical keys, digital keys can be copied millions of times exactly without any flaw over miliseconds without requiring any specialized tool on site.