Meta "turning Facebook into Epstein's paedophile island"

[phenomlab]

Here’s a topic that caught my interest yesterday - I think the title says it all…

MP Paul Waugh accuses Meta of turning Facebook Messenger into 'Epstein's paedophile island'

After MP Paul Waugh accused Meta of turning Facebook into "Epstein's own paedophile island", Facebook's representative said online child abuse imagery...(more)

Sky News

Now, here’s the thing. I understand the need for encryption to ensure the privacy of information supplied over what is effectively an open channel, and prone to eavesdropping. That’s the immediate response from the privacy advocate sewn through me like a stick of rock.

However, I also support the flip side in the sense that same level of privacy and encryption can also be afforded to criminals and other nefarious actors alike - not to mention paedophiles. The statement from Waugh below totally nails it

“Twenty years ago, someone like Gary Glitter had to go to the other side of the world to prey on children,” said Labour MP Paul Waugh to Chris Yiu, one of Meta’s directors of public policy.

"Someone like Jeffrey Epstein had to create his own private paedophile island.

“Now, these monsters, all they have to do is go on to set up a group on Facebook Messenger.”

Paul Waugh is 100% on point here, but to me, it’s a thin line that we are finding ourselves having to tread more often than not. On the one hand, we have a duty to protect our children, but on the other hand, we all want the privacy encryption affords.

I’m interested in a discussion around this topic, and I see both sides.

[phenomlab]

And on the subject of “balance”, the below article is a good example. It makes the clear point that whilst you please one “camp”, you cannot realistically please the other. It’s all about balance, which is increasingly harder to find.

What Apple pulling UK Advanced Data Protection means for you

The tech giant's decision has prompted questions and concerns about reduced protections for UK iCloud users.

BBC News

Apple has made headlines by pulling its most advanced data security tool for UK customers.

It is removing Advanced Data Protection (ADP) after the Home Office asked for the right to be able to access data which it is applied to - something even Apple itself cannot currently do.

Rather than comply with that request, on Friday the tech giant said it would halt new UK sign-ups to the tool and remove existing user access at a later date.

The move has prompted criticism of the UK government’s actions - but also confusion about what protections remain for UK Apple customers.

[Madchatthew]

This is very interesting. It would make me wonder that even if they do this encryption if a pedaphile group would still even want to use it. I would think that they would be more apt to use the dark web to do their communicating with burner phones and all of that kind of thing. I am all for encryption to protect one’s privacy and I can also see where having that data available to catch any pedophiles. There are other encrypted apps out there that they are most likely using to begin with so I think that making these encrypted isn’t really going to change much.

Now you may get those pedaphiles who aren’t as smart and use platforms like facebook messenger to send their messages back and forth. There is a movie actor that is big into finding pedaphiles and has a company where they scour the dark web to try and find these people as well as follow up leads that are submitted to people. I can’t remember his name but he was on that 70s show.

Then I think that why even have the encryption, because as long as you aren’t breaking the law, then what do you have to worry about. But it seems like a gateway to me for authorities to snoop in on peoples every day business without the encryption.

I am interested in what others think as well.

[phenomlab]

@Madchatthew Good points here. Agreed - if you have nothing to hide, then why would you want encryption in the first place. But then there is the same thought process - you wouldn’t air your dirty laundry in public, so you’d want encryption even for the most basic / boring discussions, because everyone has a right to privacy. Inevitably, this presents something of a Catch 22 situation.

Most paedophile rings are not going to be reliant on Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp either, let’s be honest.

[Madchatthew]

@phenomlab said in Meta "turning Facebook into Epstein's paedophile island":

Most paedophile rings are not going to be reliant on Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp either, let’s be honest.

That was my initial thought and if they are using those platforms then good, they can be caught easier. I agree thought, I am sure most of them have their own chatting and whatever platform that they use to communicate back and forth.

That is probably why I would be for having the encryption placed. I don’t think that it would open up any extra doors, because based on history, no one really trusts the big tech companies with their info. It’s the whole, we are doing a random drug test, but it really isn’t random type of scenario haha

[phenomlab]

@Madchatthew said in Meta "turning Facebook into Epstein's paedophile island":

I don’t think that it would open up any extra doors, because based on history, no one really trusts the big tech companies with their info.

Yes, exactly that. This is the core reason as to why people tend to go for the lesser-used platforms that offer a high level of security, such as Telegram, Signal, and Wickr.

I found this infographic from NordVPN which shows the most popular messenger apps by country. The results are unsurprising.

[Madchatthew]

@phenomlab that is about what I expected to those as the top ones across the board.