Well of course, it just completely kills it for 99% of people - i’d argue it’s much worse than ban because it will be actually technically enforced, unless you go out of your way with your devices and software treatment + make sure whoever you talk with do the same…which is almost impossible task 
Maybe not so impossible for the group of people with the criminal intent… oh wait. 
Ooooh noooeees!
You don’t imply that criminals won’t follow the law?!
Stop being such a conspiracy theorist!!11 
@keybreak
How much for the bridge? Does it come with encrypted end caps so no one can get on it when I’m on it?
It does.
Unless someone arbitrarily appointed by government says there’s something on the bridge that might be a problem, in which case, they can get on to check.
But ya, this is one of the most detrimental and completely absurd things I could ever even fathom. It’s like ridiculous hyperbole comedy routine. I truly feel depressed for anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea.
2 Likes
This is my Countries take on it and many other countries and i see nothing wrong with it. We need laws with the ability to protect not only peoples data, and their privacy but we also need laws and the ability to protect the vulnerable in society. We have to have that ability to stop criminal activity when it happens and before. That’s all there is to it and i agree with all of it!
End-To-End Encryption And Public Safety
My country supports strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security. It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the UN Human Rights Council.
Encryption is an existential anchor of trust in the digital world and we do not support counter-productive and dangerous approaches that would materially weaken or limit security systems.
Particular implementations of encryption technology, however, pose significant challenges to public safety, including to highly vulnerable members of our societies like sexually exploited children. We urge industry to address our serious concerns where encryption is applied in a way that wholly precludes any legal access to content. We call on technology companies to work with governments to take the following steps, focused on reasonable, technically feasible solutions:
-
Embed the safety of the public in system designs, thereby enabling companies to act against illegal content and activity effectively with no reduction to safety, and facilitating the investigation and prosecution of offences and safeguarding the vulnerable;
-
Enable law enforcement access to content in a readable and usable format where an authorisation is lawfully issued, is necessary and proportionate, and is subject to strong safeguards and oversight; and
-
Engage in consultation with governments and other stakeholders to facilitate legal access in a way that is substantive and genuinely influences design decisions.
Impact On Public Safety
Law enforcement has a responsibility to protect citizens by investigating and prosecuting crime and safeguarding the vulnerable. Technology companies also have responsibilities and put in place terms of service for their users that provide them authority to act to protect the public. End-to-end encryption that precludes lawful access to the content of communications in any circumstances directly impacts these responsibilities, creating severe risks to public safety in two ways:
-
By severely undermining a company’s own ability to identify and respond to violations of their terms of service. This includes responding to the most serious illegal content and activity on its platform, including child sexual exploitation and abuse, violent crime, terrorist propaganda and attack planning; and
-
By precluding the ability of law enforcement agencies to access content in limited circumstances where necessary and proportionate to investigate serious crimes and protect national security, where there is lawful authority to do so.
Concern about these risks has been brought into sharp focus by proposals to apply end-to-end encryption across major messaging services. UNICEF estimates that one in three internet users is a child. The WePROTECT Global Alliance – a coalition of 98 countries, 39 of the largest companies in the global technology industry, and 41 leading civil society organisations – set out clearly the severity of the risks posed to children online by inaccessible encrypted services in its 2019 Global Threat Assessment: “Publicly-accessible social media and communications platforms remain the most common methods for meeting and grooming children online. In 2018, Facebook Messenger was responsible for nearly 12 million of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of CSAM [child sexual abuse material to the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)]. These reports risk disappearing if end-to-end encryption is implemented by default, since current tools used to detect CSAM [child sexual abuse material] do not work in end-to-end encrypted environments. On 3 October 2019 NCMEC published a statement on this issue, stating that: “If end-to-end encryption is implemented without a solution in place to safeguard children, NCMEC estimates that more than half of its CyberTipline reports will vanish.”
On 11 December 2019, the United States and European Union (EU) issued a joint statement making clear that while encryption is important for protecting cyber security and privacy: “the use of warrant-proof encryption by terrorists and other criminals – including those who engage in online child sexual exploitation – compromises the ability of law enforcement agencies to protect victims and the public at large.”
Response
In light of these threats, there is increasing consensus across governments and international institutions that action must be taken: while encryption is vital and privacy and cyber security must be protected, that should not come at the expense of wholly precluding law enforcement, and the tech industry itself, from being able to act against the most serious illegal content and activity online.
In July 2019, the governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada issued a communique, concluding that: “tech companies should include mechanisms in the design of their encrypted products and services whereby governments, acting with appropriate legal authority, can gain access to data in a readable and usable format. Those companies should also embed the safety of their users in their system designs, enabling them to take action against illegal content.”
On 8 October 2019, the Council of the EU adopted its conclusions on combating child sexual abuse, stating: “The Council urges the industry to ensure lawful access for law enforcement and other competent authorities to digital evidence, including when encrypted or hosted on IT servers located abroad, without prohibiting or weakening encryption and in full respect of privacy and fair trial guarantees consistent with applicable law.”
The WePROTECT Global Alliance, NCMEC and a coalition of more than 100 child protection organisations and experts from around the world have all called for action to ensure that measures to increase privacy – including end-to-end encryption – should not come at the expense of children’s safety.
Conclusion
We are committed to working with industry to develop reasonable proposals that will allow technology companies and governments to protect the public and their privacy, defend cyber security and human rights and support technological innovation. While this statement focuses on the challenges posed by end-to-end encryption, that commitment applies across the range of encrypted services available, including device encryption, custom encrypted applications and encryption across integrated platforms. We reiterate that data protection, respect for privacy and the importance of encryption as technology changes and global Internet standards are developed remain at the forefront of each state’s legal framework. However, we challenge the assertion that public safety cannot be protected without compromising privacy or cyber security. We strongly believe that approaches protecting each of these important values are possible and strive to work with industry to collaborate on mutually agreeable solutions.
When I read all these “reasons” it looks like all those vulnerable childrens do not have parents. First and also the most efficient way is for the parents to educate the children what to do/not to do on the internet.
1 Like
No!!!111
Most effective way is to become North Korea style society and collectively think of the children in your very comfortable GULAGs, otherwise somebody might hurt themselves or the others… 
P.S. On the other hand there’s even better solution, we must kill everyone now, to stop all the misery! 
Imma big brain, let me handle that hard task! 
Oof. That is sad. My greatest fear for people is dogma. It’s really really sad and scary to see people who are in favor of it. I know you asked recently about my misanthropic views. This is what causes it.
4 Likes
Sounds to me like people are reporting CSAM shared through Facebook Messenger- the system is working!
Jokes aside, the current system seems to be working fine. If the price for liberty is that police need to do more legwork to catch criminals, that’s fine with me. If the police need more resources to deal with widespread use of E2E encryption then up my taxes- that’s what they’re what for. But don’t destroy the security architecture that underpins our entire society and economy to prevent crime.
I’d be damned if they’ll catch even one pedo with it, coz that’s clearly not what they’re willing to implement it for.
Just like patriot act…so many terrorist were caught with mass surveillance…yeah so many terror acts prevented…like…NONE.
3 Likes
They’ll catch one. They will need to make a huge public display about how it works. Unlikely 2 though.
1 Like
Once you realize that power corrupts most of the men, you will understand how dangerous this is.
Power, control, money and the ability to stay in power even if you are not elected through the establishment/deep state.
This is how I know that this law will be used, I’m sure about it.
1 Like
I’m sure they’ll totally won’t catch one federal agent 
There will be some clause in the loophole about how those holding federal office will be exempt from this.
1 Like
If there is, I’m absolutely sure that won’t be respected.
You see, you just say that you need to monitor someone, it is for the national security, this is happening already in some places.
There will be blackmail and etc… Decisions made by politicians scared to be exposed and all the same thing we are used to see in 3rd world countries.
1 Like
Hey are saying you support pedos and terrorists? Maybe if you didn’t hate [insert country here] you would understand that this is about catching bad guys. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
That is exactly how a side of the society behaves today, usually the “left” side of spectrum.
If I don’t agree with something, I’m a fascist and all the “ist” things you can through at me…
Can’t you for the first time, think outside the box ?
Don’t use other opinions, or opinions that you get from the TV, or from your lefty teacher, use your own head…
I think everyone has a huge misunderstanding of what these laws and statements about public safety are attempting to achieve. Any normal intelligent and educated person would welcome these efforts to have protections built into these platforms so that they have the ability when needed to report criminal activity, to monitor their own platforms and have the legal authority. This isn’t rocket science.
This isn’t all about children. This isn’t about doing away with end to end encryption. Matter of fact it states and i quote:
Encryption is an existential anchor of trust in the digital world and we do not support counter-productive and dangerous approaches that would materially weaken or limit security systems.
It’s about enabling companies to act against illegal content and activity effectively with no reduction to safety, and facilitating the investigation and prosecution of offences and safeguarding the vulnerable;
Enable law enforcement access to content in a readable and usable format where an authorisation is lawfully issued, is necessary and proportionate, and is subject to strong safeguards and oversight;
Engaging in consultation with governments and other stakeholders to facilitate legal access in a way that is substantive and genuinely influences design decisions.
It’s about trying to make tech companies responsible for what happens on their platforms and how their platforms are used for criminal activity using encryption to hide those activities including terrorism.
I applaud these efforts because they are needed. We need revamped laws when it comes to the Internet because this isn’t the 90’s and laws need to be upgraded. Tech companies need to be held accountable and we do need protections.
I see the aspects that are good for society as a whole. Not always concentrating on the “negative”.
I’m pretty sure that was satire context by @thereillywriter
2 Likes