> It stands to reason that if we saw default E2E encryption across the board it would be a lot harder for the police to get evidence and would lead to a lot fewer convictions.

I am firmly-albeit-reluctantly OK with this, if the alternative is widespread surveillance of what should logically be private correspondence/communication among private citizens.

I value the privacy of the hundreds of millions of the citizen population over a slight increase in the conviction rate of the tens to hundreds of thousands predators.

For people like Hernandez, and I don't know how many there are, as it is never mentioned anywhere. You could think of restricting Tor anonymity with children you have no shared contacts with. I would be very, very wary of going a step further than that as it's very easy to justify "just another step.

To prevent someone from growing dependent on or vulnerable to an external abuser, we could invest in mental healthcare and counselling for conditions like depression which is all too common in teenagers nowadays.

Facebook should not be in the business of writing malware. Malware which could well be used against activists.

To my knowledge, a vast majority of crimes are committed in the home and without uploading evidence of it online. It would never be dealt with by outlawing any sort of encryption.

Would it not be better to figure out ways we could tackle that? Counsellors taking a close look at children? Teachers trained to identify abused children? CPS making a closer examination of suspicious households?

I know you're coming from but online crime really is a tip of an iceberg. An iceberg that is easy to spot but one which masks the true scope of the insidiousness going on below and makes it all too easy to say mission accomplished.

Agreed. Making encryption the boogeyman is the wrong way, too broad. Ensuring the easily accessible comm channels are accessible to law enforcement, seems like an OK compromise. What those channels are should be the focus of the discussion imo.

This is my issue with the act, it doesnt spell out who would be subject to this rather leaves it up to the DOJ to spell out the rules later.

I am probably in the minority here on HN but I think bundling together encryption with platforms like Facebook/IG is a bad idea given how easy those platforms make it for bad actors to meet/identify potential victims. Signal/whatsapp etc I am ok with since they dont provide that same ability.

> No, but there's a huge excluded middle between the level of abuse with easy E2E encryption and no abuse.

call me old fashioned but every time I look at porn (which is very rare these days) I am disgusted by the meta-data that is added to these videos. It shows that people love to click on videos that read "stepdad and stepdaughter ..." and similar taglines. America has a problem with the whole "call me daddy" fetish. I never understood what this is about. It's deeply pedophelic imho and it's the main reason why I hate porn. It looks like it's hard to find videos where some form of domination (rough sex) isn't part of it. the way women are treated is IMO the gateway which normalizes violence first against women (even pretend rape is a genre here pushed by pornhub & co). why do people get off on this and why do porn companies get away with it ?? <- my opinion is to start the crackdown on this type of messaging here and before even cracking down have a discussion about wtf is wrong with people? why do they have to strangle each other during sex?

> Facebook has been around for 15 years now without E2E encryption. I have not noticed lives being destroyed but perhaps you can share examples?

the problem with FB is mostly that it many countries FB _is_ the Internet. Myanmar (the Rohinga's) would be a fitting example. Also the Philipines where the Duarte government is currently using it on their brutal war on drugs. If there would be justice Zuck and anyone working at FB would be rotting in jail even before we discuss pedophelia. thousands in the Philipines have been killed thanks to Duarte's messaging. FB literally kills and gets away with it.

FB agreeing to develop 0days to crack down on a few cases doesn't make them the good guys. I believe the world would be better off if FB wouldn't exist at all.

Vice is also known to push a pro-cop pro-LE agenda. I stopped watching their videos and reading their content when they showed how cannabis production in Albania hurts Europe (wtf) ... they are a pro-cop & ultra-conservative outlet. Screw vice and screw cops.

> I can't cite any numbers, but it seems the majority of convictions I've read have some variation of evidence being found on phones,

I know security companies love to cite their work with law-enforcement and how they help fight crime. when I had an interview with the biggest Swiss security company few years ago they bragged about their work with Interpol and how they help fight the bad guys. But nobody ever mentions that the software companies like NSO, Gamma, HackingTeam makes doesn't just allow LS to compromise phones (people assume it's read-only) when reality is the features are always read-write. Putting things on these devices is possible because from an engineering pov why would you limit a feature and not allow write access ... I know enough cops who brag about how they abuse their power . So why would I trust them not to plant shit on these phones (especially when they're convinced that they're dealing with a bad guy).

> America has a problem with the whole "call me daddy" fetish. I never understood what this is about. It's deeply pedophelic imho

I would challenge that. I would argue that it is a that there are a lot of people (regardless of country) that get a rise out of things that are taboo. One of those things is the step-parent/child thing (because parent/child is too far for many people).

Parent / child might be alright if it is purely role-play and not real.

> America has a problem with the whole "call me daddy" fetish. I never understood what this is about. It's deeply pedophelic imho

It is impossible to have a discussion on this topic when some people use the word Pedophilia to cover "babies and small children" and others are using it to cover zero to eighteen year olds. While it might be immoral or illegal if a 55 year old is having sex with a 16 year old it isn't pedophilia. A Daddy kink is incest, again not pedophilia. Please use the correct terms. Otherwise it muddies the discussion until no one can discuss it at all.

>why do they have to strangle each other during sex?

Okay, now it smells like SJW and white-knighting. Many women fantasize about being raped, dominated and strangled. There's nothing bad or wrong in living out those fantasies. It doesn't normalize violence or cause rape.

I’ve actually heard some things about the Albanian cannabis mafias. (They aren’t Dutch growers, let’s say ;)) Not to detract from your larger point.