> This is essential to science.

Okay, fine. Are you claiming that people who are calling to ban encryption are doing so on a scientific basis?

Come on, be serious here. People call to ban encryption because it scares them, not because they have a model of the world based on real data or real science that they're using to reinforce that belief.

If they did, we could argue with them. But we can't, because they don't.

> Can you find a place where this contradicts something I’ve said?

Yes, see below:

> such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to

I'm open to some kind of clarification that makes this comment make sense. How are your "solutions" going to make people less afraid? On what basis are you going to argue with these people that your solution is better than banning encryption?

Pretend that I'm a concerned parent right now. I want to ban encryption. What can you tell me now to convince me that any other solution will be better?

> This is essential to science.

>> Okay, fine. Are you claiming that people who are calling to ban encryption are doing so on a scientific basis?

No. Did I say something to that effect?

> Come on, be serious here. People call to ban encryption because it scares them, not because they have a model of the world based on real data or real science that they're using to reinforce that belief.

You say this as if you are arguing against something I have said. Why?

> If they did, we could argue with them. But we can't, because they don't.

We can still argue with them, just not with science.

> Can you find a place where this contradicts something I’ve said?

> Yes, see below:

You’ll need to explain what the contradiction is. You have said you don’t understand it, but you not understanding doesn’t make it a contradiction.

>> such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to

> I'm open to some kind of clarification that makes this comment make sense.

It makes sense to have solutions that don’t weaken privacy. Wouldn’t you agree?

> How are your "solutions" going to make people less afraid?

They won’t.

> On what basis are you going to argue with these people that your solution is better than banning encryption?

Which people? The parents, the nefarious actors, apple’s customers?

> Pretend that I'm a concerned parent right now. I want to ban encryption. What can you tell me now to convince me that any other solution will be better?

Of course not because you are going to play the role of an irrational parent who cannot be convinced.

Neither of us disagree that such people exist. Indeed we both believe that they do.

Why does changing such a person’s mind matter?

> Neither of us disagree that such people exist. Indeed we both believe that they do.

> Why does changing such a person’s mind matter?

Okay, finally! I think I understand why we're disagreeing. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding your views below.

> You’ll need to explain what the contradiction is.

I kept getting confused because you would agree with me right up to your conclusion, and then suddenly we'd both go in opposite directions. But here's why I think that's happening:

You agree with me that there are irrational actors that will not be convinced by any kind of reason or debate that their fears are irrational. You agree with me that those people will never stop calling to ban encryption, and that they will not be satisfied by any alternative you or I propose. But you also believe there's another category of people who are "semi-rational" about child abuse. They're scared of it, maybe not for any rational reason. But they would be willing to compromise, they would be willing to accept a "solution" that targeted some of their fears, and they might be convinced than an alternative to banning encryption is better.

Where we disagree is that I don't believe those people exist -- or at least if they do exist, I don't believe they are a large enough or engaged enough demographic to have any political clout, and I don't think it's worth trying to court them.

My belief is that by definition, a fear that is not based on any kind of rational basis is an irrational fear. I don't believe there is a separate category of people who are irrationally scared of child predators, but fully willing to listen to alternative solutions instead of banning encryption.

So when you and I both say that we can't convince the irrational people with alternative solutions, my immediate thought is, "okay, so the alternative solutions are useless." But of course you think the alternative solutions are a good idea, because you think those people will listen to your alternatives, and you think they'll sway the encryption debate if they're given an alternative. I don't believe those people exist, so the idea of trying to sway the encryption debate by appealing to them is nonsense to me.

In my mind, anyone who is rational enough to listen to your arguments about why an alternative to breaking encryption is a good idea, is also rational enough to just be taught why banning encryption is bad. So for people who are on the fence or uninformed, but who are not fundamentally irrationally afraid of encryption, I would much rather try gently reaching out to them using education and traditional advocacy techniques.

----

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and maybe there is a political group of "semi-rational" people who are

A) scared about child abuse

B) unwilling to be educated about child abuse or to back up their beliefs

C) but willing to consider alternatives to breaking encryption and compromising devices.

If that group does exist, then yeah, I get where you're coming from. BUT personally, I believe the history of encryption/privacy/freedom debates on the Internet backs up my view.

Let's start with SESTA/FOSTA:

First, Backpage did work with the FBI, to the point that the FBI even commented that Backpage was going beyond any legal requirement to try and help identify child traffickers and victims. Second, both sex worker advocates and sex workers themselves openly argued that not only would SESTA/FOSTA be problematic for freedom on the Internet, but that the bills would also make trafficking worse and make their jobs even more dangerous.

Did Backpage's 'compromise' sway anyone? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who opposed sites like Backpage but were willing to listen to arguments that the bills would actively make sex trafficking worse? No, those people never showed up. The bills passed with broad bipartisan support. Later, several Senators called to reexamine the bills not because alternatives were proposed to them, but because they put in the work to educate themselves about the stats, and realized the bills were harmful.

Okay, now let's look at the San Bernardino case with Apple. Apple gave the FBI access to the suspect's iCloud account, literally everything they asked for except access to decrypt the phone itself. Advocates argued that the phone was unlikely to aid in the investigation, and also suggested using an exploit to get into the phone, rather than requiring Apple to break encryption. Note that in this case the alternative solution worked, the FBI was able to get into the phone using an exploit rather than by compelling Apple to break encryption. The best case scenario.

Did any of that help? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who were willing to listen to the alternative solution? Did the debate cool because of it? No, it changed nothing about the FBI's demands or about the political debate. What did help was Apple very publicly and forcefully telling the FBI that any demand at all to force them to install any code for any reason would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. So minus another point from compromise as an effective political strategy in encryption debates, and plus one point to obstinance.

Okay, now let's jump back to early debates about encryption: the clipper chip. Was that solved by presenting the government and concerned citizens with an alternative that would better solve the problem? No, it wasn't -- even though there were plenty of people who argued at the time for encryption experts to work with the government instead of against it. Instead the clipper chip problem was solved both when encryption experts broke the clipper chip so publicly and thoroughly that it destroyed any credibility the government had in claiming it was secure, and it was solved by the wide dissemination of strong encryption techniques that made the government's demands impossible, over the objections of people who called for compromise or understanding of the government's position.

----

I do not see any strong evidence for a group of people who can't be educated about encryption/abuse, but who can be convinced to support alternative strategies to reduce child abuse. If that group does exist, it does a very good job of hiding, and a very bad job of intervening during policy debates.

I do think that people exist who are skeptical about encryption but who are not so irrational that they would fall into our category of "impossible to convince." However, I believe they can be educated, and that it is better to try and educate them than it is to reinforce their fears.

Because of that, I see no political value in trying to come up with alternative solutions to assuage people's fears. I think those people should either be educated, or ignored.

It is possible I'm wrong, and maybe you could come up with an alternative solution that reduced CSAM without violating human rights to privacy and communication. If so, I would happily support it, I have no reason to oppose a solution that reduces CSAM if it doesn't have negative effects for the Internet and free culture overall, a solution like that would be great. However, I very much doubt that you can come up with a solution like that, and if you can, I very much doubt that outside of technical communities anyone will be very interested in what you propose. I personally think you would be very disappointed by how few people arguing for weakening encryption right now are actually interested in any of the alternative solutions you can come up with.

And it's my opinion, based on the history of privacy/encryption, that traditional advocacy and education techniques will be more politically effective than what you propose.

> My belief is that by definition, a fear that is not based on any kind of rational basis is an irrational fear. I don't believe there is a separate category of people who are irrationally scared of child predators, but fully willing to listen to alternative solutions instead of banning encryption.

We disagree here, indeed. My view is not that there are ‘semi-rational’ people. My view is that there are hard to quantify risks that it is rational to have some fear about and see as problems to be solved. I think this describes most of us, most of the time.

The idea that there is a clear distinction between ‘rationally’ understanding a complex social problem through science, and being ‘irrational and unconvincable’ seems inaccurate to me. Both of these positions seem equally extreme, and neither qualify as reasonable in my view, nor are they how most people act.

I think there are a lot of people who are reasonably afraid of things they don’t fully understand and which nobody fully understands. These people reasonably want solutions, but don’t expect them to be perfect or to assuage everyone’s fear.

These are the people who can easily be persuaded to sacrifice a little privacy if it means making children safer from horrific crimes.

They are also people who would prefer a solution that didn’t sacrifice so much if it was an option.

My argument is that the best way to make things better is to make better options available. Irrationally paranoid parents, and irrationally paranoid governments exist, but are the minority.

Most people just want reasonable solutions and aren’t going to be persuaded by either extreme. If you make an argument about creeping authoritarianism they’ll say ‘child porn is a real problem, and that risk is distant’.

If you offer them a more privacy preserving solution to choose as well as a less privacy preserving option, they’ll likely choose the more privacy preserving option.

Apple is offering a much more privacy preserving option than just disabling encryption. People will accept it because it seems like a reasonable trade-off in the absence of anything better.

If we think it’s a bad trade-off that is taking us in the direction of worse and worse privacy compromises, we aren’t likely to be able to persuade people to ignore the real trade-offs, but we stand a chance of getting them to accept a better solution to the same problem.

If we don’t offer an alternative solution we aren’t offering them anything at all.

> I see no political value in trying to come up with alternative solutions to assuage people's fears.

Why do you mention this again? Nobody is arguing for a solution designed to assuage people’s fears.

> I do not see any strong evidence for a group of people who can't be educated about encryption/abuse, but who can be convinced to support alternative strategies to reduce child abuse.

Why do you assume education about encryption/abuse is relevant? Even people who deeply understand the issue still have to choose between the options that are available and practical.

> If that group does exist, it does a very good job of hiding,

It’s not a meaningful group definition.

> and a very bad job of intervening during policy debates.

Almost nobody intervenes during policy debates unless there have a strong position. Most people just choose the best solution from what is available and get on with their lives which are not centered on these issues.

> maybe you could come up with an alternative solution that reduced CSAM without violating human rights to privacy and communication. If so, I would happily support it, I have no reason to oppose a solution that reduces CSAM if it doesn't have negative effects for the Internet and free culture overall, a solution like that would be great.

Indeed. Isn’t that what we really want here? The only reason people are engaged in all this ideological battle is that they assume there isn’t a technical solution.

> However, I very much doubt that you can come up with a solution like that.

You could have just said you are someone who doesn’t believe a technical solution is possible.

> I personally think you would be very disappointed by how few people arguing for weakening encryption right now are actually interested in any of the alternative solutions you can come up with.

Why would you think I would be disappointed? We have already discussed how I don’t expect those people to change their minds.

Fortunately that is irrelevant to whether a solution would help, since it is not aimed at them.

> My view is that there are hard to quantify risks that it is rational to have some fear about and see as problems to be solved.

Heavily agreed. But those are not irrational fears.

They become irrational fears when learning more about the risks and learning more about the benefits and downsides of different mitigation techniques doesn't change anything about those fears one way or another.

We all form beliefs based on incomplete information. That's not irrational. It is irrational for someone to refuse to look at or engage with new information. If someone is scared of the potential for encryption to facilitate CSAM because they're working with incomplete information, that's not irrational.

If someone is scared of encryption because they have incomplete information, and they refuse to engage with the issue or to learn more about the benefits of encryption, or the risks of banning it, or what the stats on child predators actually are -- at that point, it's an irrational belief. What makes them irrational is the fact that they are no longer being adjusted based on new information.

A rational person is not someone who knows everything. A rational person is someone who is willing to learn about things when given the opportunity.

> Why do you mention this again? Nobody is arguing for a solution designed to assuage people’s fears.

I guess I don't understand what you are arguing for then.

Let's look at your "reasonable people who are reasonably afraid" camp. We'll consider that these people have doubts about encryption, but don't hate it. They are scared of the potential for abusers to run rampant, but are having trouble figuring out what that looks like or what the weak points are in a complicated system. They are confused, but not bad-faith, and they have fears about something that is legitimately horrific. We will say that these people are not irrational, they recognize a real problem and earnestly want to do something about it.

There are 2 things we can do with these types of people:

1) We can educate them about the dangers of banning encryption and encourage them to research more about the problem. We can remain open to other proposals that they have, while making it clear that each proposal's social benefits have to be weighed against their social costs.

or

2) We can offer them some kind of compromise solution that may or may not actually address their problem, but will make them feel like it does, and which will in theory make them less likely to try and ban encryption.

You seem to be suggesting that we try #2? And this apparently isn't designed to assuage their fears? But I'm not sure what it does then. Presumably the reason they'll accept your proposal is because it addresses the fears they have.

My preference is to try #1. I believe that if someone is actually in the camp you describe, if they have reasonable fears but they're looking at a complex social problem, openly talking to those people about the complex downsides of banning encryption is OK. They'll listen. They might come up with other ideas, they might bring up their own alternative solutions. All of that is fine, none of us are against reducing CSAM, we just want people to understand the risks behind the systems being proposed.

But importantly, if someone is genuinely reasonable, if they aren't irrational and they're just trying to grapple with a complex system -- then talking about the downsides should be enough, because those people are reasonable and once they understand the downsides then they'll understand why weakening encryption isn't a feasible plan. From there we can look at alternatives, but the alternatives are not a bargaining chip. Even if there were no alternatives, that wouldn't change anything about the downsides of making software more vulnerable. First, people must understand why a proposed solution won't work, and then we can propose alternatives.

To me, if someone comes to me and says, "I'm not interested in hearing about the downsides of banning encryption, come up with a solution or we'll ban it anyway" -- I don't think that person is reasonable, I don't think they're acting rationally, and certainly I'm not interested in working with that person or coming up with solutions with that person.

> If we don’t offer an alternative solution we aren’t offering them anything at all.

Where I fall on this is that I am totally willing to look for alternative solutions; but encryption, device ownership, privacy, and secure software -- these are not prizes to be won, conditional on me finding a solution.

We can look for a solution together once we've taken those things off the table.

Because if someone comes to me asking to find a good solution, I want to know that they're coming in good faith, that they genuinely are looking for the best solution with the fewest downsides. If they're not, if they're using encryption as some kind of threat, then they're not really acting in good faith about honestly looking at the upsides and downsides. I have a hard time figuring out how I would describe that kind of a person as "reasonable".

> I personally think you would be very disappointed

> Why would you think this? Did I say anything anywhere about convincing people who are arguing for weakening encryption?

Let me be even more blunt. I think that you could come up with a brilliant solution today with zero downsides that reduced CSAM by 90%. And I think you would be praised if you did come up with that solution, and it would be great, and everyone including tech people like me would love you for it. And I also think it would change literally nothing about the current debates we're having. I think we would be in the exact same place, I think all of the people who are vaguely worried about CSAM and encryption (even the good faith people you mention above) would still be just as worried tomorrow. You could come up with the most innovative amazing reduction strategy for CSAM ever conceived, and it would not change any of those people's opinions on encryption.

I'm not just talking the irrational people. It would not change the opinions of the reasonable people you're describing above. Because why would it? However good your solution is, if encryption is genuinely not worth preserving, then it would always be better to implement your solution and ban encryption. I don't say that derisively, if the benefits of banning encryption really did outweigh the downsides, then it would genuinely be good to get rid of encryption.

The only reason we don't get rid of encryption is because its benefits do heavily outweigh its downsides. Not because this is some kind of side in a debate, but because when you examine the issue rationally and reasonably, it turns out that weakening encryption is a really bad idea.

> My argument is that the best way to make things better is to make better options available.

This is another point where we differ then.

As far as I can tell, any reasonable person who is convinced that encryption is a net negative is always going to be interested in getting rid of encryption unless they understand what the downsides are. Any reasonable person who is on the fence about encryption is going to stay on the fence until they get more information. I don't see how proposing alternative solutions is going to change that.

So I believe that the only way these reasonable people you describe are going to change their minds are if they're properly educated about the downsides of making software vulnerable, if they're properly educated about the upsides of privacy, and if they're properly educated about the importance of device ownership.

And maybe I'm overly optimistic here, but I also do believe that reasonable people are willing to engage in good faith about their proposed solutions and to learn more about the world. I don't think that a reasonable person is going to clam up and get mad and stop engaging just because someone tells them that their idea to backdoor software has negative unintended side effects. I think that education works when offered to reasonable people.

> There are 2 things we can do with these types of people:

> 1) We can educate them about the dangers of banning encryption and encourage them to research more about the problem. We can remain open to other proposals that they have, while making it clear that each proposal's social benefits have to be weighed against their social costs.

> or

> 2) We can offer them some kind of compromise solution that may or may not actually address their problem, but will make them feel like it does, and which will in theory make them less likely to try and ban encryption.

Why are those the only two solutions? That seems like a false dichotomy.

Again why would you think I’m suggesting #2.

Can I ask you straight up, are you trolling?

There is a pattern where you say “I think you are saying X” where X is unrelated to anything I have actually said. I ask “why do you think I think X”, and you don’t answer, but just move on to repeat the process.

I have been assuming there is good faith misunderstanding going on, but the fact that you keep not explaining where the misunderstandings have arisen from when asked is starting to make me question that.

Most of what you’ve written in this reply is frankly incoherent, or at least seems to be based on assumptions about my position that are neither valid nor obvious, as to make it seem seem unconnected from our previous discussion.

For example this:

> To me, if someone comes to me and says, "I'm not interested in hearing about the downsides of banning encryption, come up with a solution or we'll ban it anyway" -- I don't think that person is reasonable, I don't think they're acting rationally, and certainly I'm not interested in working with that person or coming up with solutions with that person.

Just seems like a gibberish hypothetical that doesn’t have much to do with what we are talking about.

And this:

> You could come up with the most innovative amazing reduction strategy for CSAM ever conceived, and it would not change any of those people's opinions on encryption.

What does it even mean to ‘reduce CSAM’? Why do we care about changing people’s minds here about encryption?

Let’s take another part:

> Where I fall on this is that I am totally willing to look for alternative solutions; but encryption, device ownership, privacy, and secure software -- these are not prizes to be won, conditional on me finding a solution.

Ok, but those are all in fact fluid concepts whose status is changing as time goes by, and mostly not in the directions it sounds like you would prefer. Nobody is thinking of them as prizes. The status quo is that they are in jeopardy.

> We can look for a solution together once we've taken those things off the table.

Ok, but this just means you aren’t willing to participate with people who don’t agree to a set of terms, which in fact don’t represent anything anyone has so far developed.

That’s a comment about your personal boundaries not about whether a better solution than what Apple is proposing could be built.

That’s fine by me, in fact I’d be happy if a solution did incorporate all of the concepts you require. I agree we need that. I argue for it quite often.

I don’t think such a thing has been built yet, and if it were built, I suspect parents would like to have some mechanism to control whether it was. vector of child exploitation before they let their kids use it.

So what would that solution look like?

> Why are those the only two solutions? That seems like a false dichotomy.

It's not? It's a real dichotomy. What other solution could there be?

I mean, OK, I guess there are other solutions we could try like ignoring them or attacking them or putting them in prison or some garbage, but to me those kinds of solutions are off the table. So we either figure out some way to satisfy them, or convince them that we're right. That's not a false dichotomy, those are the only 2 options.

I assume you're suggesting #2 because you're sure as heck not suggesting #1, and I can't figure out what else you could be suggesting.

----

> why do you think I think X

Frankly, if this isn't what you think, then I don't understand what you're thinking.

You keep on saying that we need to offer solutions, we can't just criticize Apple's proposal, we have to offer an alternative if we're going to criticize. But why?

- I thought the point was to get rid of people's fears: no, you're saying that's not what you mean.

- I thought the point was to compromise with critics: no, you're saying that's not what you mean.

- I thought the point was to try and get people to stop attacking encryption: no, you're saying that's not what you mean.

- Heck, I thought the point was to reduce CSAM, and you're telling me now that even that's not what you mean either?

> What does it even mean to ‘reduce CSAM’? Why do we care about changing people’s minds here about encryption?

What? We're on the same thread, right? We're commenting under an article about Apple instituting policies to reduce CSAM, ie, to make it so there is less CSAM floating around in the wild. When you talk about a "solution", what problem are you even trying to solve? Because all of us here are talking about CSAM, that's what Apple's system is designed to detect.

I don't understand. How can you possibly not be talking about CSAM right now? That's literally what this entire controversy is about, that's the only reason this thread exists.

----

Honest to God, hand over my heart, I am not trolling you right now. I understand that this is frustrating to you, but my experience throughout this conversation has been:

- You say something

- I try to interpret and build on it

- You tell me that's not what you meant and ask me why I thought that

- Okay, I try to reinterpret and explain

- The cycle repeats

- The only information I can get out of you is that I apparently don't understand you. I'm not getting any clarification. You just tell me that I'm misunderstanding your position and then you move on.

What are you trying to accomplish by proposing "alternative" solutions to Apple's proposal? You seem to think this will help keep people from attacking encryption, but I'm wrong to say that it will help by reducing their fears, or by distracting them, or by teaching them, or by solving the problems that they think they have, or... anything.

You tell me that "if we think it’s a bad trade-off that is taking us in the direction of worse and worse privacy compromises, we aren’t likely to be able to persuade people to ignore the real trade-offs, but we stand a chance of getting them to accept a better solution to the same problem." But then you tell me that "encryption is not a prize" and the goal is not to convince them of anything, which to me completely contradicts the previous sentence.

If encryption isn't a prize, if "nobody is thinking of them as prizes", then why does it sound like you're telling me that preserving encryption is conditional on me coming up with some kind of alternative? If encryption isn't a prize, then great, let's take it off the table.

But then I'm told that taking encryption off the table means that "you aren’t willing to participate with people who don’t agree to a set of terms". So apparently encryption is on the table, and I am coming up with alternative solutions in order to convince people to attack something else? But that's not what you mean either, because you tell me that people will always attack encryption, so I don't even know.

You're jumping back and forth between positions that seem completely contradictory to me. I thought that you had a different view than me about how reasonable privacy-critics actually were, but apparently you also have different views than me about what the problem is that Apple is trying to solve, what privacy-critics even want in the first place, what the end goal of all of this public debate actually is. Maybe you even disagree with me about what privacy and human rights are, since "those are all in fact fluid concepts whose status is changing as time goes by".

So I need you to either lay out your views very plainly without any flowery language or expansion in a way that I can understand, or I need to stop having this conversation because I don't know what else I can say other than that I find your views incomprehensible. If you can't do that, then fine, we can mutually call each others' views gibberish and incoherent, and we can go off and do something more productive with our evenings. But I'll give this exactly one last try:

----

> Most of what you’ve written in this reply is frankly incoherent

Okay, plain language, no elaboration. Maybe this isn't what you're arguing about, maybe it is. I don't care. Here's my position:

A) it is desirable to reduce CSAM without violating privacy.

B) the downsides of violating privacy are greater than the upsides of reducing CSAM.

C) most of the people arguing in favor of violating privacy to stop CSAM are either arguing in bad faith or ignorance.

D) the ones that aren't should be gently educated about the downsides of breaking encryption and violating human rights.

E) the ones that refuse to be educated are never going to change their views.

F) compromising with them is a waste of time, and calls to "work with the critics" instead of educating them are a waste of time.

G) working with critics who refuse to be educated about the downsides of violating privacy will not help accomplish point A (it is desirable to reduce CSAM without violating privacy).

H) thus, we should refuse to engage with people about reducing CSAM unless they take encryption/privacy/human rights off of the table (on this point, you understood my views completely, people who view CSAM as a bigger deal than human rights shouldn't be engaged with)

I) a technical solution that reduces CSAM without violating privacy may or may not be possible. But it doesn't matter. Even if a technical solution without violating privacy is impossible, violating privacy is still off the table, because the downsides of removing poeple's privacy rights would still be larger than the upsides of removing CSAM.

Can you give me a straightforward, bullet-point list of what statements above you disagree with, if any?

>> 2) We can offer them some kind of compromise solution that may or may not actually address their problem, but will make them feel like it does, and which will in theory make them less likely to try and ban encryption.

> Why are those the only two solutions? That seems like a false dichotomy. It's not? It's a real dichotomy. What other solution could there be?

3) Offer a better technical that is less of a compromise than what Apple is offering, or indeed is not a compromise at all.

> I mean, OK, I guess there are other solutions we could try like ignoring them or attacking them or putting them in prison or some garbage, but to me those kinds of solutions are off the table. So we either figure out some way to satisfy them, or convince them that we're right. That's not a false dichotomy, those are the only 2 options. I assume you're suggesting #2 because you're sure as heck not suggesting #1, and I can't figure out what else you could be suggesting.

I’m not suggesting #2 because #2 is a straw man.

---- >> why do you think I think X

>Frankly, if this isn't what you think, then I don't understand what you're thinking.

Ok - that seems like a straightforward response. You don’t understand.. But I clearly am not saying the things you are attributing to me.

I have no repeatedly asked where I said anything that leads you to think they are my view. It’s rare that you answer. From my point of view that means you aren’t actually responding to what I have written. You read what I write, don’t understand it, and then make something up that isn’t what I’ve said (or is even directly contradicted by what I’ve said) and then you tell me that’s what I’m saying.

If this was a one time thing, it would be fine, but at this point it doesn’t seem to matter what I say - you’ll just respond as if I said something else, and you won’t explain why when asked. From here it looks like you are having a discussion with your own imagination, rather than with what I write.

Here’s an example:

>> You keep on saying that we need to offer solutions, we can't just criticize Apple's proposal,

Where do I ‘keep saying that we can’t just criticize apple’s proposal.’? If that is something I have said more than once, you should be able to quote me. If not then it isn’t actually something I keep saying, it’s only in your imagination that I am saying it.

> we have to offer an alternative if we're going to criticize. But why?

Another example of something I you are imagining me to be saying, but that I am not.

> - I thought the point was to get rid of people's fears: no, you're saying that's not what you mean.

I have now said it is not what I mean, multiple times with explanation, and yet you keep saying it is. Why is that?

> - I thought the point was to compromise with critics:

Why do you think that? I have never said it. Again it’s something you are imagining. What is the text that made you imagine it? If we knew that, we could uncover where you haven’t understood.

> no, you're saying that's not what you mean.

Of course, because I didn’t say it.

> - I thought the point was to try and get people to stop attacking encryption:

Again I have never said this was the point, not only that I have said we can never do so.

But you have not explained why you thought this was the point.

> no, you're saying that's not what you mean. - Heck, I thought the point was to reduce CSAM, and you're telling me now that even that's not what you mean either?

In this case then misunderstanding is mine. I misunderstood ‘reduce csam’ as ‘reduce csam detection’. I.e. I read it as get Apple to reduce their efforts.

> What does it even mean to ‘reduce CSAM’?

This is what I do when I don’t understand what someone has written - I ask them. You answered, and we have uncovered where I misunderstood.

If you answered my questions, we might have understood why you haven’t been understanding me.

> Why do we care about changing people’s minds here about encryption?

It seems to me that you have an agenda to change people’s minds about encryption. What isn’t clear is why you attribute that to me.

> What? We're on the same thread, right? We're commenting under an article about Apple instituting policies to reduce CSAM, ie, to make it so there is less CSAM floating around in the wild. When you talk about a "solution", what problem are you even trying to solve? Because all of us here are talking about CSAM, that's what Apple's system is designed to detect.

Agreed - like I say I just misread the phrase.

> I don't understand. How can you possibly not be talking about CSAM right now? That's literally what this entire controversy is about, that's the only reason this thread exists.

Ageeed - like I say I just misread the phrase. ---- > Honest to God, hand over my heart, I am not trolling you right now.

The reason it looks like trolling, is that when you say ‘your are saying X’, and X doesn’t appear to be supported by my words, X seems like a straw man. I have assumed this not to be intentional, and I believe you, but by not answering the question ‘why would you think I think that?’ you created ambiguity in your intentions.

> I understand that this is frustrating to you,

It’s not so much ‘frustrating’, as not functional as a discussion. If you misunderstand me and don’t answer questions aimed at getting to the root of the misunderstanding then you’ll likely just talk past me. I am just trying to evaluate whether an alternative is possible.

> but my experience throughout this conversation has been: - You say something - I try to interpret and build on it - You tell me that's not what you meant and ask me why I thought that - Okay, I try to reinterpret and explain - The cycle repeats

This seems like close to a description of what I am seeing but not quite. Let’s examine the steps:

1. You say something 2. I try to interpret and build on it 3. You tell me that's not what you meant and ask me why I thought that 4. Okay, I try to reinterpret and explain 5. The cycle repeats

In #2 you say ‘You tell me that's not what you meant and ask me why I thought that’. This isn’t quite true. I often don’t ask ‘why you thought that’ in a vague way. I ask ‘what did I say that made you think that’. I ad,it there may be a few lapses, but most of the time I ask what i said that led to your understanding.

In #4 you said “I try to reinterpret and explain”. What you don’t do is answer the question - what is it I said that led to your understanding?

By not answering this question, we don’t get to the root cause of the misunderstanding.

a> - The only information I can get out of you is that I apparently don't understand you.

You don’t.

> I'm not getting any clarification. You just tell me that I'm misunderstanding your position and then you move on.

This is false. I ask what I said that led to the misunderstanding. I do not move on.

What are you trying to accomplish by proposing "alternative" solutions to Apple's proposal?

> You seem to think this will help keep people from attacking encryption,

What have I said that makes you think that?

[there are a few paragraphs that I can’t respond to because they don’t make sense]

> But then I'm told that taking encryption off the table means that "you aren’t willing to participate with people who don’t agree to a set of terms".

Did I misunderstand you? Did you mean something else by ‘taking encryption off the table’?

> So apparently encryption is on the table, and I am coming up with alternative solutions in order to convince people to attack something else? But that's not what you mean either, because you tell me that people will always attack encryption, so I don't even know.

I thought you agreed that there are some people who will always attack encryption. I didn’t think it was just me ‘telling you that’. Did I misunderstand you - do you think you can get people to stop attacking encryption?

> You're jumping back and forth between positions that seem completely contradictory to me.

That’s possible, but I don’t think so. Can you quote where you think I have contradicted myself?

> I thought that you had a different view than me about how reasonable privacy-critics actually were, but apparently you also have different views than me about what the problem is that Apple is trying to solve, what privacy-critics even want in the first place, what the end goal of all of this public debate actually is. Maybe you even disagree with me about what privacy and human rights are, since "those are all in fact fluid concepts whose status is changing as time goes by".

This seems like sarcasm and bad faith. You are misrepresenting me. For example, I have never mentioned human rights.

Privacy on the other hand, is definitely a fluid concept.

What we consider it to mean has changed over time as both technology and society have developed.

> So I need you to either lay out your views very plainly without any flowery language or expansion in a way that I can understand,

What do you mean by flowery language?

> or I need to stop having this conversation because I don't know what else I can say other than that I find your views incomprehensible.

I know you do.

> If you can't do that, then fine, we can mutually call each others' views gibberish and incoherent,

Your views to the extent that I know them, don’t seem gibberish or incoherent. It’s when you incorporate interpretations of my views that don’t relate to what I have said, that what you write appears incoherent to me.

and we can go off and do something more productive with our evenings. But I'll give this exactly one last try: ---- > Most of what you’ve written in this reply is frankly incoherent Okay, plain language, no elaboration. Maybe this isn't what you're arguing about, maybe it is. I don't care. Here's my position: A) it is desirable to reduce CSAM without violating privacy. B) the downsides of violating privacy are greater than the upsides of reducing CSAM. C) most of the people arguing in favor of violating privacy to stop CSAM are either arguing in bad faith or ignorance. D) the ones that aren't should be gently educated about the downsides of breaking encryption and violating human rights. E) the ones that refuse to be educated are never going to change their views. F) compromising with them is a waste of time, and calls to "work with the critics" instead of educating them are a waste of time. G) working with critics who refuse to be educated about the downsides of violating privacy will not help accomplish point A (it is desirable to reduce CSAM without violating privacy). H) thus, we should refuse to engage with people about reducing CSAM unless they take encryption/privacy/human rights off of the table (on this point, you understood my views completely, people who view CSAM as a bigger deal than human rights shouldn't be engaged with) I) a technical solution that reduces CSAM without violating privacy may or may not be possible. But it doesn't matter. Even if a technical solution without violating privacy is impossible, violating privacy is still off the table, because the downsides of removing poeple's privacy rights would still be larger than the upsides of removing CSAM. Can you give me a straightforward, bullet-point list of what statements above you disagree with, if any?

Honestly, no. This looks like just a blunt attempt to win some argument of your own with me playing a role that has nothing to do with the conversation so far. You are also asking me to do a lot of work to answer your questions when you have been unwilling to answer mine. That doesn’t seem like good faith.

Remember, you came to this subthread by replying to me. But you have consistently ignored clarifying questions.

Was it your goal along was to simply ignore what I have been saying and find a spot to just make your own case? I am genuinely unsure.

How about we start somewhere simpler? When I ask ‘what did I say that made you thunk that’, can you explain why you rarely answer?

> When I ask ‘what did I say that made you thunk that’, can you explain why you rarely answer?

Okay, sure. When you ask me to try and justify why I think you hold your position, I interpret that as a distraction (hopefully a good faith one). I don't want to argue on a meta-level about why I got confused about your comments, I want to know what you believe. I'm frustrated that you keep trying to dig into "why are you confused" instead of just clarifying your position.

My feeling is we could have skipped this entire debate if you had sat down and made an extremely straightforward checklist of your main points, consisting of maybe 5-10 bullet points, each one to two sentences max. This is a thing I've done multiple times now about my beliefs/positions during this discussion. If we get mixed up about what the other person is saying, the best thing to do is not to dive into that, it's to take a step back and try to clarify from the start in extremely clear language.

You looked at the final checklist and said "this looks like just a blunt attempt to win some argument of your own". I looked at it as a charitable invitation to step back, write 10-20 sentences instead of 15 paragraphs, and to just cut through the noise and figure out where we disagree. If your checklist doesn't overlap with mine, fine. It's not bad for us to discover that we're arguing past each other. What's bad is if we spend X paragraphs getting frustrated about meta-arguments that have nothing to do with Apple.

I don't want to debate language or start cross indexing each other's comments, I want to debate ideas.

So when you tell me that I'm wrong about what you believe, I look over your statements and try to reinterpret, and I move on. Very rarely is my instinct to sit down and try to catalog a list of statements to try and prove to you that you do believe what I think, because I take it as a given that if you tell me that I misinterpreted you... I did.

So I accept it and move on.

----

Yes, we could get into a giant debate about "what makes you think I think that". That might go something like:

> You seem to think this will help keep people from attacking encryption,

> What have I said that makes you think that?

And I could reply by linking back to one of your previous comments:

> "Most people just want reasonable solutions and aren’t going to be persuaded by either extreme. If you make an argument about creeping authoritarianism they’ll say ‘child porn is a real problem, and that risk is distant’.

> If you offer them a more privacy preserving solution to choose as well as a less privacy preserving option, they’ll likely choose the more privacy preserving option.

> Apple is offering a much more privacy preserving option than just disabling encryption. People will accept it because it seems like a reasonable trade-off in the absence of anything better."

Which to me sounds quite a bit like: "offer a solution that doesn't target encryption, and then these people won't target encryption because 'most people just want reasonable solutions'".

----

But what's the point of the above conversation? I already know that you don't interpret those 3 paragraphs about a "privacy preserving option" as meaning "a proposal that will stop reasonable people from attacking encryption." Because you told me that's not what you believe.

So how weird and petty would I need to be to start arguing with you, "actually you did mean that, and I have proof!" Is it any value to either of us to try and trip each other up over "well, technically you said"? I'm not here trying to trap you, I want to understand you.

Honestly, the short answer to why I rarely reply back with quotes about "why I think you said that", is I kind of interpreted "what makes you think I think that" as a vaguely rude attempt to derail the conversation and debate language instead of ideas, and I've been trying to graciously sidestep it and move on.

- I'm happy to debate privacy with someone

- I'm happy to listen to them so I can understand their views better

- I'm not happy to debate whether or not someone believes something. I think that's a giant meaningless waste of time.

I don't think that means you're operating in bad faith, but I can't think anything I would rather do less than spend all day going back over all of your statements to cross-reference them so I can prove that... what? That I misunderstood your actual position? I believe you, you don't need to prove to me that I misunderstood you! Let's just skip that part and move on to explaining what the actual position really is.

It doesn't matter "why I think you said what I said", it just matters that I understand you. So why get into that meaningless debate instead of just asking you to clarify or trying to reinterpret? I don't care about technicalities and I don't care about "winning" against you, and I interpret "justify why you thought I thought that" as a meaningless distraction that only has value in Internet points, not in getting me any closer to understanding what your views are.

>> When I ask ‘what did I say that made you thunk that’, can you explain why you rarely answer?

> Okay, sure.

> When you ask me to try and justify why I think you hold your position,

At this point it’s hard to read you as honest because of the frequency with which you misrepresent me. I have to assume you are unaware of this.

I am talking about why you won’t identify which words of mine lead to your misunderstandings of my position.

Why would you represent that as asking you to ‘justify’ your interpretation? That isn’t what I’m doing, and more importantly it’s not something I said. I’m just asking you to tell me what you are interpreting so I can see if what I said was ambiguous and if so how.

> I interpret that as a distraction (hopefully a good faith one).

A distraction from what? Are you not seeking to understand? Later in this comment you claim to want to know what my views are. If you ignore clarifying questions as a ‘distraction’, it seems likely that misunderstandings will keep arising.

> I don't want to argue on a meta-level about why I got confused about your comments,

Who is asking you to ‘argue on a meta-level’? I am asking you to simply say what words you are referring to when a misunderstanding becomes apparent.

> I want to know what you believe.

I recommend trying to get to the bottom of misunderstandings then.

> I'm frustrated that you keep trying to dig into "why are you confused"

You misrepresent me again. Can you not see that I haven’t asked ‘why are you confused’?

I have asked what you are referring to when you attribute a view to me that I don’t think is contained in what I wrote.

> instead of just clarifying your position.

I could clarify my position if you were willing to tell me what I said that lead to your interpretations of my views.

> I could clarify my position if you were willing to tell me what I said that lead to your interpretations of my views.

Okay, holy crud, I'm out. I have zero interest in the evolution of this conversation from a debate about privacy/encryption tradeoffs, into "let's figure out who's arguing in good faith", into "explain to me why you think I'm asking you to explain to me what I'm thinking".

I've made a quick ~$5 donation to Matrix.org (https://imgur.com/a/wVj2neA) in the hope that their current work with on-by-default E2E encryption and P2P community hosting/connections will ideally make this entire conversation irrelevant in the future.

I wish you the best in coming up with your technical solutions.

> "explain to me why you think I'm asking you to explain to me what I'm thinking"

Again, not an honest interpretation of anything I have said. What I said was extremely clear.

I think it’s reasonable to conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting me, and have been all along.

My conclusion is that you aren’t actually an honest person. I’m sorry.