UK Government Readies Anti-Encryption Publicity Campaign to 'Keep Children Safe' Online

[laptech]

Interesting view from the UK's Information Commissioner:

End-to-end encryption protects children, says UK information watchdog​

Information commissioner defends value of privacy protection in face of government-backed campaign

End-to-end encryption protects children, says UK information watchdog

Information commissioner defends role of privacy protections in face of government-backed campaign

www.theguardian.com

The reporter of the article should have informed it's readers that the person named in the article has a biased view on privacy because it is that persons job to make sure privacy rules and law are respected and followed. His view on law breakers is exactly the same view as some in there and that view is because there are other means to catch the bad guys there is no reason to stop E2E. That's a very bad view in my opinion.

The NSPCC are quoted in the article and I feel their view is more balanced on the issue of protecting children and privacy matters.

 

[Shirasaki]

Maybe i should fight back and say your fixation on privacy is bad because it puts the safety of others into jeopardy. As for your remark, your putting words into my mouth because i have never said E2E is bad. Maybe you should contact the UK government and tell them the exact same thing you just told me. I am just arguing the merits of what the UK government is trying to do to protect the UK public. Is what the UK government trying to do open to abuse? hell yes because it has already be proven with the use of anti-terrorism laws being abused by the UK police. Is what the UK government trying to do going to erode more of the publics privacy? hell yes but what alternative is there?

I have already explained in other posts of mine that contary to the beliefs of some members in here, I am not anti-privacy. I hold the rights of privacy very dearly and it concerns me that more of our privacy could be eroded if the UK governments get's their way BUT as I have explained, due to the specific nature of why the UK government want to what it wants to, although very hesitant, I am for it.

So ok, you say you don't really "anti-privacy". The thing is, no one in the discussion here would disagree protecting children is bad. This is clear. The majority in this thread merely state destroying E2E won't help any more at protecting kids than what we have already been done, which I assume you agree, but correct me if I am wrong.

Now, back to the beginning, you post a reply asking other people to think about "protecting children" and sacrifice privacy. What would those people think? They'd assume you support UK government agenda and want to get rid of E2E, and now you say you are not anti-privacy.

Let me make this clear: the whole discussion is based on protecting children but not through destroying E2E, and most people are just discussing about alternatives, blame UK government, defending E2E etc etc. Basically, everyone assumes protecting children is the goal. You got it this time now?

 

[laptech]

So ok, you say you don't really "anti-privacy". The thing is, no one in the discussion here would disagree protecting children is bad. This is clear. The majority in this thread merely state destroying E2E won't help any more at protecting kids than what we have already been done, which I assume you agree, but correct me if I am wrong.

Now, back to the beginning, you post a reply asking other people to think about "protecting children" and sacrifice privacy. What would those people think? They'd assume you support UK government agenda and want to get rid of E2E, and now you say you are not anti-privacy.

Let me make this clear: the whole discussion is based on protecting children but not through destroying E2E, and most people are just discussing about alternatives, blame UK government, defending E2E etc etc. Basically, everyone assumes protecting children is the goal. You got it this time now?

No it is not. This debate has been about people being concerned that their privacy might be affected. Protecting children is an after thought. Many in this debate have used the line 'of course we want child abuse to stop', do you?? really? because no one is showing it, because looking in this thread I am on the only one who is steadfastly defending the rights of children to be protected, no one else is doing it. So, have you got it this time now?

 

[LV426]

No it is not. This debate has been about people being concerned that their privacy might be affected. Protecting children is an after thought. Many in this debate have used the line 'of course we want child abuse to stop', do you?? really? because no one is showing it, because looking in this thread I am on the only one who is steadfastly defending the rights of children to be protected, no one else is doing it. So, have you got it this time now?

Just for once, I'd like you to write the word "security" in one of your responses. You appear to have a complete blindspot about this. The tech community is really quite exasperated at having to explain yet again that E2E protects the security of everybody, children included. Degrading E2E is tantamount to security vandalism putting billions of people at all kinds of risks. I'm not prepared to compromise my security for your wishes.

It's already established that criminals can easily circumvent anything Facebook might be compelled to put in place. It's already established that the vast majority of child abuse has nothing to do with the internet.

There are more and better ways to help kids without destroying the future of internet privacy.

 

[laptech]

Just for once, I'd like you to write the word "security" in one of your responses. You appear to have a complete blindspot about this. The tech community is really quite exasperated at having to explain yet again that E2E protects the security of everybody, children included. Degrading E2E is tantamount to security vandalism putting billions of people at all kinds of risks. I'm not prepared to compromise my security for your wishes.

It's already established that criminals can easily circumvent anything Facebook might be compelled to put in place. It's already established that the vast majority of child abuse has nothing to do with the internet.

There are more and better ways to help kids without destroying the future of internet privacy.

Let me put you straight on one thing, first and foremost it is not..i repeat NOT my wishes. I have made my position very clear on this so please do not try to take my posts or wording out of context or misinterprete or miscommunicate any or all of the wording in any of my posts, same applies to everyone else. I have made it very clear that I support the UK governments stance on this specific issue. I am for protecting chidrens safety and am prepared to give up my privacy to do so. This does not mean I am against E2E being in every facite of society, it does not mean I am anti-privacy. I like my privacy, I agree on rights to privacy. I am merely defending and sticking up for the UK government. I can see the merits of what they want to do and why they want to do it and thus defending this.

Again, just because criminals may find others other ways to communicate with one another is no excuse for the UK government to stop going ahead with their plans.

 

[VulchR]

...
How can governments do it's job in protecting the public, the public who moan and complain the government is not doing enough to stop all of the above from happening when us the public are basically tieing the hands of the government by saying 'protect us but do not invade our privacy to do so'.
...

The government's job is to do what people tell it to do. Clearly if the UK government has the hubris to support an ad campaign bashing end-to-end encryption, then those leading the government know full well the people want end-to-end encryption. Remember this is the same Conservative-controlled UK government that proposed the snooper's charter (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill).

How do we catch paedophiles? Using detective work and search warrants - targeted investigation instead of blanket surveillance.

 

[laptech]

The government's job is to do what people tell it to do. Clearly if the UK government has the hubris to support an ad campaign bashing end-to-end encryption, then those leading the government know full well the people want end-to-end encryption. Remember this is the same Conservative-controlled UK government that proposed the snooper's charter (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill).

How do we catch paedophiles? Using detective work and search warrants - targeted investigation instead of blanket surveillance.

If the UK government did what it's public told it do illegal immigrants would be immediatly deported upon entry to the UK. The NHS would get better funding and more pay for doctors and nurses. Policing levels would be increased so there be more visual presence of police patrolling our streets. The death penalty would be brought back for very serious crimes. The UK government only listens to the public when it suits them.

And as I have said before, the NSPCC is an extremely power charity and when it goes charging into government demanding things change for the better, the government listens.

 

[Shirasaki]

No it is not. This debate has been about people being concerned that their privacy might be affected. Protecting children is an after thought. Many in this debate have used the line 'of course we want child abuse to stop', do you?? really? because no one is showing it, because looking in this thread I am on the only one who is steadfastly defending the rights of children to be protected, no one else is doing it. So, have you got it this time now?

Ok. You don’t accept our implication of protecting children. That’s fine. Either way, destroying E2E in the name of protecting children is not a thing. UK government has all the resources they want and allied with US which could also assist. If they still think mass surveillance is the way to protect children then go ahead and pass the bill. Someone needs to learn the lesson, hard.

 

[LV426]

I am for protecting chidrens safety and am prepared to give up my privacy to do so. This does not mean I am against E2E being in every facite of society.

Then you really don't understand the technology. As has been explained ad nauseum by the tech industry, there is either communication security or there is not. Apple themselves have argued in court that there is no such thing as a safe backdoor.

I am merely defending and sticking up for the UK government. I can see the merits of what they want to do and why they want to do it and thus defending this.

You are on a hiding to nothing, because the UK government's position is indefensible. It really comes down to a futile breaking of security, which would harm countless millions of people, including children. Unfortunately, think of the children is a false message that is easily written in rightwing rags. Personally, I am very happy that Barnardo's twitter feed supporting the government stance has been wholly debunked and has backfired spectacularly.

Again, just because criminals may find others other ways to communicate with one another is no excuse for the UK government to stop going ahead with their plans.

That statement does not make the remotest kind of sense. In the first place, the government plans are futile, for exactly the reason that other ways of secure communication are possible. Secondly, it's not "just because criminals may find other ways to communicate" that the government plans are a terrible idea. There are many other reasons. I don't know how many times this has to be said to you.

 

[VulchR]

...

And as I have said before, the NSPCC is an extremely power charity and when it goes charging into government demanding things change for the better, the government listens.

Non-elected charities putting pressure on government to change policy or law is not necessarily a good thing, but in any case that is orthogonal to whether banning end-to-end encryption is a good thing on the whole. My opposition to government trying to change opinion about encryption should not be interpreted as me being soft on child abusers (and I won't accuse you of being anti-privacy as per your post above). As I noted above my extended family has had to deal with the fallout of multiple instances of child abuse, none of which would have been prevented or more easily prosecuted by ending encryption. I believe that the police have all the investigative powers they require to pursue child abusers. It might not be easy for them, but they can still get at the truth without stomping on the right to privacy for the vast majority of people who have never committed any kind of illegal act, let alone child abuse.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No it is not. This debate has been about people being concerned that their privacy might be affected. Protecting children is an after thought. Many in this debate have used the line 'of course we want child abuse to stop', do you?? really? because no one is showing it, because looking in this thread I am on the only one who is steadfastly defending the rights of children to be protected, no one else is doing it. So, have you got it this time now?

And yet you have ignored my points again and again.

I have stated it’s about security not privacy. And you have no evidence that kids or anyone will be safer when E2E is made illegal.

There are thousands of iOS and android apps using E2E encryption. Millions of ways to do it on the PC.

And the police would be exactly where it is now, locked outside unable to read the information protected by E2E encryption.

Only thing solving it is infiltrating such encrypted groups etc.

What will fundamentally change?

 

[SFjohn]

It seems governments everywhere want access to all our information, everything stored on phones, everything on the web, all your banking and medical information, just everything, everywhere for everyone. What they fail to realize is that with all that information exposed, they themselves are open to attack from bad actors, be it governments or singular individuals. Now I hope I don’t get censored for referring to governments in a very broad sense, as has often happened before here on MR.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

because looking in this thread I am on the only one who is steadfastly defending the rights of children to be protected, no one else is doing it. So, have you got it this time now?

only thing you do is dislike but never respond to the hard questions on those you cant answer

 

[laptech]

only thing you do is dislike but never respond to the hard questions on those you cant answer

Rubbish and you know it. As for dislikes, I put dislike on posts because that is how others have been treating me in here.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Rubbish and you know it. As for dislikes, I put dislike on posts because that is how others have been treating me in here.

If thats the case, respond to my points

 

[sudo-sandwich]

We persistanly demand that our governments do more to protect us but then when the government comes back and says the only way we can protect you is to carry out more monitoring suddenly us the public go 'not a chance.

Cause that's not the only way they can protect us. It also won't protect us.
(Or protect you, whatever. I don't live in the UK.)

 

[SFjohn]

Cause that's not the only way they can protect us. It also won't protect us.
(Or protect you, whatever. I don't live in the UK.)

“Save the children” has been a dog whistle used throughout history, used against ideas, people and things, for pretty much forever. It keeps getting pulled out because it keeps working, to fight against changing times and all the rest. Pretty sad that so many people don’t question it, but take it at face value. I can’t even begin to imagine all the lives lost to “save the children”.