Hacker News Reader

Comment by commoner | Hacker News Reader

One of those "other organizations" is the NCMEC, which was established by[1] and heavily funded by[2] the U.S. Congress.

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...

[3] https://www.missingkids.org/e2ee

View on HN

Given that children have attenuated rights in basically every society, restricting access to E2EE seems like an imperfect but deeply net positive way to reduce child harm. What “savory” actions for which a minor would use E2EE are you concerned are jeopardized by such a proposal?

(Particularly interested in what actions or content is jeopardized, not the ideal of privacy, which I agree is important even for minors)

Preventing children from using E2EE is not a "net positive" just as preventing adults from using E2EE is also not a "net positive". Privacy is a human right, not a right that should be made exclusive to adults. Just because children are restricted from other activities does not make it justified to restrict their rights further.

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.

I review my daughters devices regularly. She has encounters extremely predatory content - basically groomers reaching out to see who will bite.

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.

The only connection between disappearing messages and end to end encryption is they're both privacy features.

Are you reviewing the messages on their devices, or package sniffing at the gateway? I don't see how E2EE has any effect on whether a device/application retains communications or not.

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.

Lol … a little of both. As I said my daughter came into heavy contact with pedo/grooming material. Nasty stuff.

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.

Prohibiting minors from using end-to-end encryption would not prevent them from using self-destructing messages, since they are completely different features. There are messaging solutions with end-to-end encryption that do not have self-destructing messages (e.g. E2EE email, Apple iMessages) and vice versa (e.g. Snapchat).

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.

Do wire-tapping laws not apply to children? That’s what you just admitted to.

> 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.

Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Encryption neither enables nor prevents auto deletion of content.

So your answers are children organizing protests and children not being targeted by advertisers. Personally unconvinced by these since neither is actually guaranteed by E2EE nor is E2EE required for either. A functioning society can (and should) protect both of those things, and a non-functioning one doesn’t need to ban E2EE to attack them.

I appreciate the response in any case.

I'll try to express my point from a different angle. If E2EE were unavailable for adults, it would probably be easier for law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse cases in which adults are the victims. But, it would also prevent adults from enjoying the security and privacy benefits of E2EE and the protection E2EE affords against having their messages intercepted (which is something advertisers, hostile governments, and other adverse intermediaries regularly do). Many adults would not trade away the ability to use E2EE in exchange for a more empowered law enforcement.

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.

Having a sexual orientation or gender identity that their parents don't approve of and that they haven't revealed?

in what world does lack of E2EE mean “parents can read messages?”

They’d still have to hack the services or obtain a warrant, neither of which a parent can do.

What harm do you think would be reduced? Just what surveillance do you suggest?

How would it be enforced? Could minors just lie about their age? Or would you eliminate anonymity for adults?

when it comes to minors there is a good principle that whatever happened shouldn't cast shadow on adult life, like for example criminal record gets sealed/etc. Absence of E2E makes for higher chances that your communications are going to be out there for the rest of your life, so whatever stupid thing you said at 16 may be a part of your unofficial background check at 30 or even 40 ...

Wouldn't the concern be that a bad actor could be stalking and listening in on conversations? End to end would remove that man in the middle.

Depends on your threat model. Are you more worried about a hacker breaking Instagram chat and reading messages to and from your child or some bad actor grooming them?

Yeah, this is exactly what I’m getting at. Kids aren’t getting victimized by zero days against online services. They’re getting victimized by predators having private conversations with them.

> Given that children have attenuated rights in basically every society

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.

Children aren't responsible enough to.. well.. take responsibility for their actions. That is what you are arguing against.

When it's inconvenient, "children aren't capable of adult responsibility". When it's inconvenient in the other direction, "this court has decided to have you tried as an adult."

Its not clear what your statement is supposed to mean. Are you asking me to take personal responsibility for times where minors are tried as adults and we'd both see it as an injustice? Cause, I got beef with the judiciary, but I don't see how thats germane to the topic right here.

Huh?

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com