Can you describe the middle ground that I have ignored?
What disingenuous argument have I made?
The only thing I have argued for is for hackers to attempt technical solutions that are more to their liking than Apple’s, because arguments are not preventing the slide.
I am saying that you are promoting a slippery ground falsely as middle ground.
Basically the argument I hear from you is “If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground.” The problem I have with it is the “let’s build it anyway”.
That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Don’t be an apologist.
> If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground.
This looks a completely made up position that has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you can find a comment where I am advocating building back doors, I invite you to quote it.
> That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
If it was clear you’d be able to support it with a quote. I’m pretty sure you can’t.
> Don’t be an apologist.
It doesn’t seem like you have been following my argument, so it’s unclear why you’d stoop to a personal attack.
Sure, I am quite willing to hang you with your own words.
zepto
“As far as I can see:
1. This is a serious attempt to build a privacy preserving solution to child pornography.”
“ > The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. <- this is you quoting me
I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning.
They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them.”
So according to your very own words, this ISN’T a serious attempt to build a privacy supporting solution to child pornography. First, it isn’t a solution because as you stated, it won’t actually catch anyone. Second, it isn’t serious because it was never intended to catch anyone.
“2. The complaints are all slippery slope arguments that governments will force Apple to abuse the mechanism. These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.”
So according to your words these are not slippery slope arguments (the invalid argument sense) since, as you state, if you build a back door, bad people will use it. Don’t subtly use negative connotations to try to advance your argument.
Next you disingenuously frame the problem as a conflict between privacy and child pornography. That is an unsupported dichotomy.
“ However:
Child pornography and the related abuse is widely thought of as a massive problem, that is facilitated by encrypted communication and digital photography. People do care about this issue.
‘Think of the children’ is a great pretext for increasing surveillance, because it isn’t an irrational fear.”
Lastly you call for better solutions for a “solution” that actually isn’t a solution.
“So: where are the proposals for a better solution?”
“ Apple’s solution is the best on offer. ”
Another unsupported dichotomy and a false assignment of responsibility.
If this solution is bad, then toss it out. You don’t need another proposal in its place. You don’t need to deploy this backdoor
in the meantime.
It is NOT our responsibility to do the FBI’s job. It is THEIR responsibility to come up with better proposals.
If you do actually want a solution, my recommendation is to concentrate on real harm like child molestation and child trafficking. Trace how children have been trafficked historically. See how you can shut that down.
I feel dirty analyzing all the dirty tricks that you employed. Are you a politician or do you work for one? Work on policy?
> Sure, I am quite willing to hang you with your own words.
That isn’t what you’ve done.
“As far as I can see: 1. This is a serious attempt to build a privacy preserving solution to child pornography.”
- False as you even argued
I don’t argue that.
>> They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them.”
> So according to your very own words,
Erm..
> this ISN’T a serious attempt to build a privacy supporting solution to child pornography.
These are your words, not what you quoted of mine.
It’s absolutely a solution to the problem of child porn on their platform. They care about making it safe for their users. Who is expecting Apple to solve the problem beyond that?
> It is at best something to keep the FBI at bay
These are your words, not something I have said.
> even though as you say it also introduces a back door.
Where do I say it introduces a back door?
> “2. The complaints are all slippery slope arguments that governments will force Apple to abuse the mechanism. These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.”
> False, these are not slippery slope arguments
It is your opinion that they are not slippery slope arguments. I think they are, and as you have quoted I think they are reasonable. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies in the sense that the conclusions don’t logically follow, but that doesn’t mean that they are always wrong.
You haven’t hung me with anything - you’ve just voiced some misrepresentations of your own interleaved with quotes of me.
Resplendent. I won’t even add my own words. I will let you speak for yourself.
““ As far as I can see: 1. This is a serious attempt to build a privacy preserving solution to child pornography.”
I don’t argue that.””
“ Apple’s solution is the best on offer. ”
“ I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning. They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them.”
“2. The complaints are all slippery slope arguments that governments will force Apple to abuse the mechanism. These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.”
“So: where are the proposals for a better solution?”
Let the viewer decide. Are you going to argue that I have misrepresented your words? Feel free to argue with yourself.
Zepto complained that it was out of context. Here are entire comments.
“ As far as I can see:
1. This is a serious attempt to build a privacy preserving solution to child pornography.
2. The complaints are all slippery slope arguments that governments will force Apple to abuse the mechanism. These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.
However:
Child pornography and the related abuse is widely thought of as a massive problem, that is facilitated by encrypted communication and digital photography. People do care about this issue.
‘Think of the children’ is a great pretext for increasing surveillance, because it isn’t an irrational fear.
So: where are the proposals for a better solution?
I see here people who themselves are afraid of the real consequences of government/corporate surveillance, and whose fear prevents them from empathizing with the people who are afraid of the equally real consequences of organized child sexual exploitation.
‘My fear is more important than your fear’, is the root of ordinary political polarization.
What would be a hacker alternative would be to come up with a technical solution that solves for both fears at the same time.
This is what Apple has attempted, but the wisdom here is that they have failed.
Can anyone propose anything better, or are we stuck with just politics as usual?
Edit: added ‘widely thought of as’ to make it clear that I am referring to a widely held position, not that I am arguing for it.”
> The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it.
I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning.
They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them.
As far as the FBI goes, this is presumably not their preference, but it’s still good for them if it makes predation a little harder.
Also in contrast to zepto, here are words from Edward Snowden: No matter how well-intentioned,
@Apple
is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this. Make no mistake: if they can scan for kiddie porn today, they can scan for anything tomorrow.
They turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs—without asking.
> These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.
I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.