UK accuses Meta of empowering child sexual abusers with encryption rollout

Source: theguardian.com 12/7/23

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has been accused by the UK government of empowering child sexual abusers after the tech firm began rolling out the automatic encryption of all messages on its Facebook and Messenger platforms.

The home secretary, James Cleverly, described the move as a “significant step back” for child safety after Meta said it would introduce end-to-end encryption on the apps. The move means that only the sender and receiver of messages on the platforms will be able to access their content.

 
Cleverly said: “Law enforcement, charities and our close international partners all agree: these plans to roll out end-to-end encryption without appropriate safety measures will empower child sex abusers and hamper the ability of the police and NCA [National Crime Agency] to bring offenders to justice.”

The new features will be available immediately, but Meta said it would take some time for end-to-end encryption to be rolled out to more than 1bn users as a default option. Users will receive a prompt to set up a recovery method to restore their messages once the transition is completed. Calls will also be encrypted.

The government and child safety campaigners are concerned that end-to-end encryption will enable abusers to evade detection when grooming children and receiving and sending images of sexual abuse.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Cleverly said: “Law enforcement, charities and our close international partners all agree: these plans to roll out end-to-end encryption without appropriate safety measures will empower child sex abusers and hamper the ability of the police and NCA [National Crime Agency] to bring offenders to justice.”

What they really mean is the power for the government to snoop on what is being said. God knows CSAM is beyond awful and I should know given that I’ve seen plenty of it in my time—indeed, the images are still in my head after fifteen years of being away from it and I’ll never be rid of them—but I’d rather live in a free society with the ability to shield one’s communication from the government or others who want to snoop on what’s being said than in an authoritarian one like in China where there is no real freedom. Having to endure CSAM is a small price to pay in my opinion.

Such statements are also quite disingenuous. Law enforcement can and does have ways of enforcing the law with regard to the production and trafficking of CSAM without imposing upon the civil rights of citizens. It just requires them to get more clever about it. Federal prisons are full of people that they catch with it and the FCI’s continue to fill with more perpetrators so no one in law enforcement can tell me that they can’t enforce the law in this area.

They aren’t worried about terrorists using the platform to plan a deadly attack on holiday shoppers, no concerns over human traffickers sneaking people into the UK, retail theft rings, etc. No, the attention grabbing headline they use to curry public support of continued domestic spying is that encrypted messages are dangerous to children. This, my friends, is the fox trying to convince the chickens that he should be in charge of their coup and any fence to keep him out is dangerous to their precious little chicks.

So hundreds of millions of people, that are in no way breaking any laws, should be left vulnerable to identity theft, and government surveillance of every kind, so that law enforcement can have a slightly better chance of catching someone who is up to something?

Why not just pass all internet data, upstream and down, through the NSA? Just a straight up KGB?

“evade detection”

Saying the quiet port out loud.