The shapeshifting crypto wars: child sexual abuse and exploitation online is a serious issue, targeting end-to-end encryption is not the solution, scientist says
The shapeshifting crypto wars: child sexual abuse and exploitation online is a serious issue, targeting end-to-end encryption is not the solution, scientist says
Child sexual abuse and exploitation online is a serious issue. Targeting end-to-end encryption is not the solution.
In an essay on the current justification for authorities in the EU and around the globe seeking to break end-to-end-encryption to fight child sexual abuse and exploitation, researcher Susan Landau discusses the issue in historical context, and explains why breaking encryption leads us in the wrong direction.
"Think differently. Think long term. Think about protecting the privacy and security of all members of society—children and adults alike. By failing to consider the big picture, the U.K. Online Safety Act has taken a dangerous, short-term approach to a complex societal problem. The EU and U.S. have the chance to avoid the U.K.’s folly; they should do so. The EU proposal and the U.S. bills are not sensible ways to approach the public policy concerns of online abetting of CSAE [Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation]. Nor are these reasonable approaches in view of the cyber threats our society faces. The bills should be abandoned, and we should pursue other ways of protecting both children and adults."
[Edit typo.]
Anytime politicans want something deeply unpopular, they always try to make it about the kids. You can see it, in the US, with the culture war BS supposedly for the 'kids'.
Or Terrorism, or Copyright...
Now with the Gaza conflict, you can bet that 'terrorists' will become a prime scapegoat for those kinds of laws again.
I'm pro encryption, but journalism should not call somebody a scientist in the title unless the subject they're talking about has a falsifiable hypothesis and empirical evidence.
Scientist says chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. And then there's no study, just somebody's opinion, a person who has on occasion done science before.
The entire point of putting that title on the person in the headline is to add the air of authority. It's an appeal to authority. Which scientists will tell you is not science.
Scientist says it's technically correct, but misleading.
I disagree with the specifics of what you’re saying but not the point. She is a scientist, she’s speaking her opinion sure, but it’s an opinion based on hundreds of thousands of hours in a field. Identify her as a scientist and an expert.
But, that doesn’t mean you’re wholly wrong. It would be beneficial to us all of journalists came up with a better mechanism to sort learned opinion from study outcome. Some publications are good at this, but on the whole, whether you grock the source of the data from the headline is wildly variable.
I do however have one last point. The headline isn’t the article. You aren’t meant to get all the nuances of an article from the headline, otherwise we wouldn’t call it a headline, it would be the article itself. There comes a point where, so long as the headline writer isn’t deliberately disingenuous, it falls to the reader to follow up on their questions by reading the other 98% of the information in front of them.
[Edit: Misgendered the scientist in question, sleepy brain + skim reading == derp]
@jet @Jaccident
The headline isn’t the article. You aren’t meant to get all the nuances of an article from the headline, otherwise we wouldn’t call it a headline, it would be the article itself.
Yes, that's the whole thing. Although I get @jet's point, we can't tell everything in the title, and you'll need to name the original writer by her profession, even if she expresses her opinion. That's why I wrote "essay" in the body's text first sentence. (But I'm open to edit the headline, that's not the point, just provide a proposal.)
If they cared about child sexual abuse they would have raised political hell in the wake of "Asian grooming gangs," yet here we are.