> a crime fighting strategy
Is it a crime fighting strategy? I thought it was just about not making their devices and services into aids for these crimes.
> The cynic in me is also wondering what fraction of people working at places like NCMEC are pedophiles.
Good question. What has that to do with this?
And how many children can really be helped in this way? Surely the majority of child abuse happens independently of the online sharing of CSAM.
And is that really worth the suspension of important civil rights? That is really what this discussion is about. Nobody is arguing against fighting child abuse, the question is about how, and about what means can be justified.
Does it? I see no reason to assume that.
> And is that really worth the suspension of important civil rights?
No civil rights are being suspended. It’s not about that at all.
But let's also be real about something else. Think of the Venn diagram of child abusers and people who share CSAM online. Those circles are not identical. Not everybody with CSAM is necessarily a child abuser. Worse, how many child abusers don't share CSAM online? Those can't ever be found by Apple-style invasions of privacy, so one has to wonder if we're being asked to give up significant privacy for a crime fighting strategy that may not even be all that effective.
The cynic in me is also wondering what fraction of people working at places like NCMEC are pedophiles. It'd be a rather convenient job for them. And after all, there's a long history of ostensibly child-serving institutions harboring the worst kind of offenders.