Breaking E2EE is their goal. CSAM is the McGuffin.
Why did you feel that the phrasing minimized it enough to miss the point?
In general I think it is better to not project some emotional reading onto other people’s posts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger
So it is obvious why somebody wouldn’t ask for more details on that sort of thing, right?
Maybe you are just using it to ask why they are annoyed, and weren’t aware of the specific definition that phrase?
In this case, it seemed like the phrasing was enough to distract them from a discussion that didnt need to be derailed
I was curious about why they felt compelled to take the thread that direction when the meaning was clear. They felt CSAM was being minimized when that was a red herring to the discussion.
Many (most?) people feel this viscerally, regardless of personal experience of parenthood or of abuse. This why the "think of the children" rhetorical gambit works.
In general, people like to believe in fairness, and dislike it when bad things happen to those who can't be said to "deserve" it somehow. Thus child abuse is more universally reviled than the rape of adults, because it's a lot harder to justify a child "deserving" that. (See also: kicking a friendly dog as a way to show off that a fictional villain is irredeemable.)
For a non-sexual example, remember how the pictures in this article provoked a surprising upswing in horror amongst even very anti-refugee people? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/shocking-image...
And yes, csam is on the up and up.
> From March 2009 to February 2022, the number of victims identified in child sexual abuse material (CSAM) rose from 2,172 victims to over 21,413 victims. From 2012 to 2022, the volume of reports to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline concerning child sexual exploitation increased from 415,650 reports to over 32 million reports.
See https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/durbin-i....
Also how about some numbers that aren't swayed by covid
What does covid have to do with the 10+ years of data I referenced? And even if the data does skew up during covid, how does that make it less of a problem?
if it's just some random kid and you have none of your own, such professions of selflessness might be more convincing
Snippet-- "I mean, back in March of 2009, the tools to track, find and report CSAM were in their infancy. Facebook didn’t start using PhotoDNA (which was only developed in 2009) until the middle of 2011. It’s unclear when Google started using it as well, but this announcement suggests it was around 2013 — noting that “recently” the company started using “encrypted “fingerprints” of child sexual abuse images into a cross-industry database” (which describes PhotoDNA)."
This is what I'm talking about with paranoid parents. I'm sick of your "save the children" bullshit
Edit-- I'll happily take the down vote on this, I understand the policy of extending charitable interpretation But I am genuinely confused which is why I asked for clarification, it was not rhetorical.
Was it someone daring to suggest that molesting a 3 year old is actually bad, like really bad?
I'd argue society would generally agree CSAM is unacceptable and we're allowing it right now. Many are quick to adopt the assumption that this law is an intentional and cleverly designed "attack on our rights to e2ee", as fact. If one can't recognize it's at least a poor attempt to balance the right to privacy with protecting kids, then I struggle to see how they're being honest with themselves.
I'm not arguing this law proposes the correct solution that should be adopted. I'm not arguing the surveillance state isn't licking their chops. I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise.
It's also wrong and harmful to attribute motive based on assumptions. While you haven't done this, many others have. Instead of taking part in a constructive debate by arguing specific points, they try to paint a false motive on the opposition. "it's just so they can spy on you!" is roughly equivalent to "you view CSAM and that's why you don't want to protect our kids". These approaches are not how you reach a good solution that balances both sides of the argument. They're just throwing the oppositions legitimate concerns under the bus.
I'd also add, while e2ee is strong, unless you're verifying and compiling all the code you run on your device yourself, Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. I assume the bar to snoop on someone would most likely be lowered if laws like this are passed. But it's still technically possible (and likely happens).
The proposed solution to stopping child porn from being shared on these platforms would at most only do just that: Stop sharing on these specific apps. There are plenty of alternatives including encrypted zips, TOR etc. Breaking e2ee in WhatsApp would not do anything to stop sharing the material.
I don't think it's a leap to question why this is proposed when it could never achieve it's intended goal.
Yes you can decompile code. But reverse engineering is time intensive (I've done it). And these code bases are huge. It wouldn't be difficult to obfuscate some element of the code so it's difficult to detect. Especially if it's rarely triggered.
> The proposed solution to stopping child porn from being shared on these platforms would at most only do just that: Stop sharing on these specific apps. There are plenty of alternatives including encrypted zips, TOR etc. Breaking e2ee in WhatsApp would not do anything to stop sharing the material.
There is value in introducing barriers, even when imperfect. You must admit that, otherwise the fact that Google/Apple can ship an OS update whenever they want negates the entire argument in favor of e2ee.
Also, just FYI encrypted zips are easily brute forced.
> There is value in introducing barriers, even when imperfect.
Not when they are completely ineffective and introduce other issues.
Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though.
> Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law.
Absolutely. Not only can they, but they do.
How is equating CSAM to (merely) emotional weight not doing that?
I never argued it doesn't.
> Your entire argument is that since privacy measures are already loose then its okay to make them looser for "the children".
Where did I make this argument? (hint: I didn't)
It's is not nearly as big a problem as states wanting to oppress people.
Maybe there are ways to check our governments’ true commitment to safety in multiple areas and draw conclusions?
Environmental protection (we live in a period of climate collapse)? Food safety (sugar industry controlling legislation etc.)? Weapon licensing? Access to healthcare services and life-saving medications like insulin? Healthcare and social services for mothers and young children? Preferring diplomacy to aggression and acts of destabilization in politics?
Looking at all of this I conclude that, sadly, our governments don’t seem to care much about our or our children’s safety.
Looking at the efforts politicians put into staying into power and acting on personal or corruption-driven agendas… we’re not in great shape and I have the feeling that there may be some manipulation going on with intention to disrupt organizing, personal privacy, and the ability of individuals to communicate without being surveilled.
All authoritarian governments absolutely hate that - for reasons having nothing to do with the safety of their citizens.