Technology

59339 readers

5284 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

539

Fighting pedophilia at the expense of our privacy: The EU rule that could break the internet (english.elpais.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 179 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

I always thought reddit awards were stupid but this post makes we wish lemmy had a way to super upvote.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 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

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?)

[+] [email protected] -12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.
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.
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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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(r). 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.