<story><title>Petition against EU chat control</title><url>https://stopscanningme.eu/en/index.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mjburgess</author><text>I&amp;#x27;d like to advance a more productive argument for pro-privacy tech people. Often the reply is to claim that governments are lying when they try to &amp;#x27;protect children&amp;#x27; and the like.&lt;p&gt;Having at least some experience with international police orgs, I can say that significant resources are dedicated to online crime (including CSAM) and their &amp;#x27;lived reality&amp;#x27; is very much expending significant resources because e2e prevents low-cost surveillance.&lt;p&gt;So the attack line that &amp;#x27;none of this is sincere&amp;#x27; is actively unhelpful -- since so much of it is sincere, it comes across at best naïve.&lt;p&gt;A better line, imv, is this: assume &lt;i&gt;present&lt;/i&gt; goverments are entirely sincere. It doesnt matter. We cannot know the intentions of &lt;i&gt;future&lt;/i&gt; governments. And we have good reasons to suppose that governments, in general, require extraordinary systems of checks-and-balances to be prevented from abuse of power.&lt;p&gt;So I&amp;#x27;d advise not attacking people who are, very often, actually thinking of the children -- you&amp;#x27;re just antagonising the people &lt;i&gt;in power&lt;/i&gt;. Rather, invite them to help you defend the liberal order of individual human rights that prevent state abuse of power. As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police.&lt;p&gt;Enabling state abuse of power has a far far higher negative outcome than marginal increases to the difficulty of policing some crimes. In many cases, police agencies &lt;i&gt;can&lt;/i&gt; find ways into criminal networks and can access messages using traditional policing.&lt;p&gt;A better rhetorical strategy here is supporting policing, providing significant additional tech expert resources to police, significant funding for &amp;#x27;online detectives&amp;#x27; -- whilst at the same time explaining the high risk against mass state incursion into all aspects of our lives.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>wkat4242</author><text>&amp;gt; Having at least some experience with international police orgs, I can say that significant resources are dedicated to online crime (including CSAM) and their &amp;#x27;lived reality&amp;#x27; is very much expending significant resources because e2e prevents low-cost surveillance.&lt;p&gt;Yes, good police work costs money. Considering the importance of child sex abuse this shouldn&amp;#x27;t be an issue. And how effective do they think this is going to be? Obviously once a few people are caught the pedos are going to find another way of sharing their filth. Either offline or more obscure apps. Meaning the old police work like infiltration will be necessary again. Meanwhile us citizens end up with surveillance forever.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not going to help the children, it&amp;#x27;s only going to make life worse for everyone.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; So I&amp;#x27;d advise not attacking people who are, very often, actually thinking of the children -- you&amp;#x27;re just antagonising the people &lt;i&gt;in power&lt;/i&gt;. Rather, invite them to help you defend the liberal order of individual human rights that prevent state abuse of power. As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police.&lt;p&gt;I doubt that. The US has done exactly that already since 2001. It&amp;#x27;s pretty clear to me that Europe just wants to follow suit. The boys want their toys.&lt;p&gt;And they are antagonising us obviously. What I don&amp;#x27;t understand is how they themselves want to live in a society where their every word is being monitored.</text></comment>
<story><title>Petition against EU chat control</title><url>https://stopscanningme.eu/en/index.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mjburgess</author><text>I&amp;#x27;d like to advance a more productive argument for pro-privacy tech people. Often the reply is to claim that governments are lying when they try to &amp;#x27;protect children&amp;#x27; and the like.&lt;p&gt;Having at least some experience with international police orgs, I can say that significant resources are dedicated to online crime (including CSAM) and their &amp;#x27;lived reality&amp;#x27; is very much expending significant resources because e2e prevents low-cost surveillance.&lt;p&gt;So the attack line that &amp;#x27;none of this is sincere&amp;#x27; is actively unhelpful -- since so much of it is sincere, it comes across at best naïve.&lt;p&gt;A better line, imv, is this: assume &lt;i&gt;present&lt;/i&gt; goverments are entirely sincere. It doesnt matter. We cannot know the intentions of &lt;i&gt;future&lt;/i&gt; governments. And we have good reasons to suppose that governments, in general, require extraordinary systems of checks-and-balances to be prevented from abuse of power.&lt;p&gt;So I&amp;#x27;d advise not attacking people who are, very often, actually thinking of the children -- you&amp;#x27;re just antagonising the people &lt;i&gt;in power&lt;/i&gt;. Rather, invite them to help you defend the liberal order of individual human rights that prevent state abuse of power. As a matter of fact, they really arent actually trying to create a secret police.&lt;p&gt;Enabling state abuse of power has a far far higher negative outcome than marginal increases to the difficulty of policing some crimes. In many cases, police agencies &lt;i&gt;can&lt;/i&gt; find ways into criminal networks and can access messages using traditional policing.&lt;p&gt;A better rhetorical strategy here is supporting policing, providing significant additional tech expert resources to police, significant funding for &amp;#x27;online detectives&amp;#x27; -- whilst at the same time explaining the high risk against mass state incursion into all aspects of our lives.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sroussey</author><text>It is not sincere because the sincere use case will be &amp;lt;1% of the real use case.&lt;p&gt;In the case of encryption, when you design it broken, it is broken for everyone.&lt;p&gt;So when you assume to spy on “criminals” (which could be some gay guy you want to put to death), you need to assume that they can spy on you as well (North Korea looking at Interpol).</text></comment>