Re: Encryption and anonymity as top tools for images of child sexual abuse
Peter Fairbrother <[email protected]> Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:28:03 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 30/09/2019 05:16, Tom Mitchell wrote: [..] > > Difficult... topic There is fundamentally only one way to look at it - do we allow unbreakable encryption or not. If we do allow it then people will use it to do bad things. Like people use shoes or telephones or toilet paper to do bad things (I'm not sure what bad things people use toilet paper for, but I'm sure there are some). If we don't allow unbreakable encryption then modern banking becomes impossible. Freedom of speech becomes impossible. And so on. And then the bad guys will find another way, or just use illegal encryption. So, to a balance of harms. Personally, I only care about abuse of children. I do not care per se if perverts look at dirty pictures of children, as long as they do not abuse children. A senior policeman in the child-abuse field I talked to about this once said that the damage continued as the children in the pictures are still alive, but I am not sure how significant that is. So, does looking at dirty pictures of children increase abuse of children? No-one knows. There is evidence both ways. There is no justification to assume it does - there was plenty of abuse before the internet (or photography) was thought of. How much does encryption help perverts? It made it harder for the Police to catch them - well actually, no, it didn't. If before the internet and encryption it was this hard to catch perverts (when anyone actually tried), the internet and encryption didn't make it much if any harder to catch them. Another thing that encryption does not do is make it easier for perverts to actually abuse children (except in the way that shoes or telephones do). There is just [1] this image in some people's heads that if there was no encryption then all the perverts would either go away or get caught easily and children would be safe and Police bills for catching perverts would decrease. So, if we banned unbreakable encryption, would child abuse fall? By how much? Personally I think it might fall a little for a short time, but then it would increase back to present levels or even more. To a final reckoning then, a small temporary decrease in child abuse versus no banking and no free speech. Doesn't seem so difficult now (or any less a horrible choice). Peter Fairbrother [1] there are of course also the people with different agendas, such as policemen and other workers in the child-abuse field I wouldn't leave a child with; and peepers from the Government and elsewhere who (ab)use the child abuse issue to try to defeat encryption. _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list [email protected] https://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography