Some fragments worth saving, regarding defenders (proponents) of overblown online “think of the children” arguments to resist, delay, rethink, or backdoor deployment of end-to-end encryption…

Part 1 [in context] — regarding “think of the children”

On the other hand, this particular argument actually *is* being used to some extent as a pressure tactic to delay the rollout of end-to-end encryption. There can be both good and disingenuous motivations for a feature.

https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Facebook-Response-to-Barr-Patel-Dutton-Wolf-.pdf

My thought on David’s argument is that “encrypted social networks have a unique abuse problem, they need anti-abuse features that other data doesn’t” seems reasonable.

But here on Earth 1, companies are deploying those anti-abuse features into private photo backup services.

So when you simultaneously have extremely powerful government agencies teaming up to demand these features *and* powerful companies showcasing those features in apps that hold private, unshared data (ie not social networks)…

… and folks like David say “privacy advocates are being uncharitable, don’t they understand this is all being driven by the special case of social networking?”

But I don’t think it really is being driven by social networking, or Apple’s proposal wouldn’t exist.

Originally tweeted by Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green) on 2021/11/22.

Part 2 [in context] — regarding user-reporting flows

This is largely a solved problem though. One I worked on at Facebook and is already present in Messenger.

I don’t think this is what’s under discussion or the debate would mostly be over.

PS I’m completely on board with these voluntary reporting features! But *those are not what governments are asking for*.

And what governments are asking for is what’s upsetting privacy folks.

More quotes. It’s really just an excellent document.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1207081/download

Originally tweeted by Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green) on 2021/11/22.