Hacker News Reader

Comment by gloppers | Hacker News Reader

That old adage "if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear" is oft berated in these sort of discussions, but it really does apply here.

This regulation is for the purposes of criminal investigation into serious harms against children, not for spying on whatever innocuous messages you happen to be sharing with friends and family. The privacy fears are being way overblown for us ordinary people.

Paedophiles, on the other hand, do not deserve privacy. They need to be scrutinised their entire lives to keep children - the targets of their vile depravity - from harm.

I support this regulation; every parent should.

View on HN

It doesn't apply at all.

If you get accidentally flagged as criminal it can easily destroy your live, without a years log curt case you might never get properly un-flagged even if you are innocent but then the damage is more then just done.

Worse after wards the chance to again be attacked when you are innocent aren't that small because even if you get un-flagged the system is most likely remembering that you had been flagged once. At least in similar cases involving police this is not uncommon.

You might literally end up in a situation with the state forcefully taking your child away because you send pictures to a doctor to ask if idk. some rash is dangerous. Even if it get's resolved it will traumatize your child, and likely you, too.

There are many ways to improve the situation with children and the internet, but this isn't a good one I think.

What do you mean "flagged as criminal"? In EU we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. No-one is criminal unless they have been through the process of justice.

The scenario you are describing just isn't going to happen.

I'm glad that the EU are proposing sensible and proportionate solutions to the thorny issue of paedophiles concealing their depraved activities online. The privacy activists have cried wolf for so long on this one, I think people just aren't buying their arguments any more.

In the real world, people do in fact get a guilty verdict only to discover the individual wasn't guilty.

The scenario described is rare, but what you are advocating for is to overfit at the cost of a few innocents. Which is great, until it happens to you or someone you care for.

The world is constantly changing. Law and justice aren't rigid. You never know when you find yourself on the other side with no way of realizing.

The biggest problem with this is that governments change. Giving them a power forever means every future government will have that power. Current intentions do not matter.

Just think about every evil government in history. It wasn't always that way, and it didn't remain that way. When you know that, how can you say something isn't going to happen?

With child protection that isn't true. Social services will take your child away while they investigate. Then 2 years later, having lost your job, your family, your friends, your house and your kid you'll be found innocent because there was never any evidence. And you'll get a nice letter telling you so but you won't get any of those things back...

> In EU we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

This law is de-facto undermining it. Sure the police will investigate and clear the name but Google, Apple and co. won't. They will just treat you as a criminal they don't want to do business with from the accusation onward because that's the cheapest thing to to for them. Not even including the fact that not having access to your mail until the investigation concludes can cause massive damages you will not get reimbursed for.

Also having had a criminal investigation because of child pornography even if proven that you are innocent hugely increases the chance of you being suspect if there is a e.g. child being abducted around where you live. Which can destroy you live even if you are innocent in many ways, e.g. BILD printing headlines implying a person which can basically just be you is most most likely the criminal. Children being forcefully taken away from there parents even if the parents turned out innocent is another thing which did/does happen and can be traumatizing for the children.

This doesn't even include cases where people are willfully wrongly convicted (even if this judgement is later overthrown). Which is a massive problem in the US when the accused is very poor. Through less so in the EU. But it still happens here in some cases, e.g. involving people with mental problems which can't properly represent themself at all and do not have a support net.

I imgine the paedophiles are also concealing their activities in physal form too? It would then be reasonble to have a police officer strip/full cavity search everyone on their way in/out of their house.

Criminals WILL have private ways - as long as it's mathematically feasible, which it is. All regulation only affects people other than those who wish to protect their conversations.

To illustrate why I think banning widespread privacy is bad, I'd like to quote the US' Miranda Warning. "Anything you say can be used against you in court." And to add: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Therefore - we shouldn't give the system all of the lines.

It's never about the children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com