It's definitely "other organizations" that are the engine of this stuff.
NCMEC has consistently tried to impede the implementation of end-to-end encryption. Even before the Apple/iCloud debacle, the NCMEC pushed tech companies to prohibit users under 18 from using end-to-end encryption:[3]
> On February 20, 2020, NCMEC released an open letter to the technology industry outlining five Principles to Safeguard Children in End-to-End Encrypted Environments.
> - Do not implement end-to-end encrypted communications for accounts where a user has indicated they are under 18 years old.
Restricting children from secure communications is an especially user-hostile way to advocate against child abuse.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121029010231/http://www.missin...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Children%27s_Assistanc...
(Particularly interested in what actions or content is jeopardized, not the ideal of privacy, which I agree is important even for minors)
End-to-end encryption helps prevent messages from being intercepted by intermediaries, such as companies and governments. For example, an advocate (for human rights, environment, or any other cause) who is under 18 may wish to coordinate a protest or some other activity while minimizing exposure to surveillance from potential adversaries. Or in a more ordinary example, children may want to communicate with others without being profiled by advertisers or government agencies through the content of their messages. Secure communications are as valuable to children as they are to adults.
As a parent, I have a right to review my childs communications.
If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted.
That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message.
That’s makes parental oversight extremely difficult.
A separate argument is that kids experiment and do dumb stuff together with other kids. Forcing them to not be able to do so in private without bad actors collecting images seems like a pretty significant sacrifice in human rights. I get the intention, I just think it is very misguided.
I’m reviewing her devices manually and monitoring her connections via router logs.
The two work in tandem. When I see an issue with one I check the other.
Once she shows better judgement, I’ll back off and give her more privacy. She’s very young now, and does need the supervision.
As a parent, you have the option to use parental controls to block apps with the self-destructing messages feature. However, other parents may have different parenting situations and styles that do not need this feature to be restricted from their children. Pushing for a feature to be unavailable for all children would infringe on other children's rights and their parents' rights.
> That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message.
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Encryption neither enables nor prevents auto deletion of content.
I appreciate the response in any case.
Child sex abuse may be a more severe crime than adult sex abuse, but aside from how certain crimes are sentenced, E2EE benefits children just as much as it benefits adults. Before arguing that E2EE should be unavailable for children, I would consider whether the argument holds up if E2EE were revoked for adults as well.
They’d still have to hack the services or obtain a warrant, neither of which a parent can do.
How would it be enforced? Could minors just lie about their age? Or would you eliminate anonymity for adults?
Just because something is true does not mean that it should be true.
> What “savory” actions for which a minor would use E2EE are you concerned are jeopardized by such a proposal?
Why does it matter whether their actions are savory or not? There are many things that reality tells us children are going to do, whether it's "savory" or not. And a lot of those things probably shouldn't be exposed to interception.
First off, who are you to tell me what I'm arguing for or against?
Second, "children" covers an EXTREMELY wide range of maturities. Some children are absolutely responsible enough to take responsibility for their actions.
Third, what on earth does that have to do with allowing anyone who feels like it to intercept their conversations?