Taking away privacy makes it easier for children to be abused.
Remember, the most likely abusers of children are not strangers off the Internet; they're people who have authority over those children: parents, church leaders, teachers, coaches, police, etc.
Private online communication makes it easier for abused children to get help.
In other words, these laws are not "fighting pedophilia". They are enabling child abuse.
In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.
So no different than all these laws that (supposedly) "stop sex trafficking" which only exist to clamp down on sex work while... drumroll... making absolutely no dent in actual sex trafficking?
Yeah... that tracks.
Just consider: If sex work were legal and not stigmatized, there wouldn't be incels, which would rob the far-right of some of its most vigorous supporters.
I always thought reddit awards were stupid but this post makes we wish lemmy had a way to super upvote.
A companion chooses her own clients, that's guild law. But physical appearance doesn't matter so terribly, you look for a compatibility of spirit.
— Inara Serra
On top of all that, I wonder how much the types of backports they're rooting for would be used to acquire the kind of material pedophiles are after. I mean kids will be kids either way and be stupid and the people that are after kiddie porn seem more likely the type of people to know their way around and stay hidden, because they're literally predators. These backports will be abused by both "the legitimate" side and criminals, so wouldn't having a "special key" to unlock your backdoor put your children in more danger, especially when you're sleeping sound thinking you're safe and therefore not worried about someone, "breaking in". (Is it still breaking in if they have a fucking key?)
Not gonna lie the fighting pedophilia seems more of an excuse in order to read our messages!
The "fighting terrorism" argument didn't work, so this is their new angle.
It worked, they just want even more access with less push back.
Or the "fighting drugs" argument either
This is nothing new fighting pedophilia and human trafficking are the smokescreen used to enact most laws controlling the internet.
Edit to fill in what I’m implying: these laws (eg FOSTA-SESTA) are either ineffective or counterproductive in their stated goal, while simultaneously having broad add-on effects, generally harming free speech.
FOSTA-SESTA makes sex work less safe for those who are not trafficked. Meanwhile it pushes actual traffickers “underground” and off the internet, making it much harder for law enforcement to find and successfully prosecute them. Bonus: the law has been used to push sex education and general discussion of sex and sexuality off of major websites.
These laws enable child abuse, not prevent it, by giving abusive authority figures greater ability to control and monitor their victims' communications.
"For the children!" legislation has never been for the children, and always has been pushing authoritarian laws that take away peoples power.
and they feel safe doing it, because they have the in built system of shutting down criticism and complaint with "Oh, so you DON'T want to protect the childrens? You DON'T want to stop them being sexually exploited?!"
Pedophiles would be terminally stupid if they used common, commercial chat systems and social media. Those who survive have probably their own forums completely disconnected from commercial prying eyes.
So in the end they would only catch a handful of very stupid amateurs while trampling on the rights to privacy and confidentiality of all citizens.
Yeah, the stupid ones get caught pretty easily. A professor at our local university was caught storing CP on a university network share.
How the fuck did they even become a professor? I mean even school student in 8th grade would not be so stupid to put regular porn on their school or home network share.
You're highly overestimating the intelligence requirements to become a professor.
Also, being well informed on a specific topic doesn't mean you're smart. My HS valedictorian is the dumbest person I've ever met. But, she was able to regurgitate information on tests without actually understanding any of it.
It was never about fighting pedophilia lol, it's about power.
For fighting pedos (or abusers in general) it would be way more helpful to fight it at the root, not the leafs.
But it's just a marketing-phrase to kill privacy, not fight abuse....
So eliminate children?
Very Huxlarian.
classic "protecting the children" to do something terrible excuse
Does anybody but me remember top sites? Back in the day bootleggers would distribute and share ripped movies and albums on top sites for bootleggers to download and copy to disc or tape. Like. They didn't use regular chats except to vet new people. They literally had their own chat networks. The same applies here. Like. Why do they think this will do anything much to make a dent in CP? We all know it won't and it's a poorly concealed attempt at destroying privacy laws.
You want to fight pedophilia, cut of the trafficking network at the head.
Release the Epstein client list.
They won't, this is how you know it's not about pedophilia, it's about further invasion of privacy and more monitoring of the peasants.
To put pressure on the countries and persuade them to vote 'yes', the European Commission placed these ads only in countries that did not want to vote for the law: Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands
lol the same politicians let grooming gangs get away with exploiting young girls, they could care less about Pedos and care more about the power they yield, in other words they're full of shit
So, a better title might be “Fighting privacy under the guise of fighting pedophelia: The EU rule that could break the internet”
Someone break out that Edward Snowden quote about having "nothing to hide".
Because those people are the reason these dumb things are proposed.
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
- Edward Snowden
I like Snowden as much as any terminally online person does, but I don't think his quote is really the best as it supposes there are people with nothing to hide. Everyone has something to hide, if for no other reason than out of embarrassment.
There's a reason why we close the bathroom door despite the fact that everyone knows we are taking a shit.
The unfortunate brilliance of it is that there are master strategists and tacticians that understand how to pass thinly-veiled invasive legislation under some undeniably noble premise.
NYC started with speed cameras and red light cameras only near schools to “protect children.” Who wouldn’t support that? Every single government employee knew this was a long term play: capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere. The same with NYPD cameras and surveillance stations.
Start with something small and digestible to the public, then use it to substantiate the unpalatable.
It's always "think of the children!" as the go to fascist propaganda
The vast majority of politicians apparently refuse to understand - despite it being explained ad nauseum in a multitude of ways - that truly robust encryption with no “master key” or “back door” that the “good guys” can use is completely integral to and absolutely required for the modern internet to work at all.
And it will probably happen. No one in power gives a fuck about logic and reason. It's all about sending a signal. People don't care about privacy but they don't like pedos!
11 years ago, I attended a talk by Gottfrid Svartholm in Berlin. He told us that we have lost the internet. Pretty good foresight eh?
What are they gonna do about my Matrix server 🤔
Fuck you Ashton.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
