alt Hacker NewsMany will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption:
> The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversation — could make it harder for law enforcement to catch predators. Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.
The New York case has explicitly gone after their support of end-to-end encryption as a target: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warn...
Replies
As a platform operator I think end to end encryption does no good in free products. It just makes you blamed for liability that you couldn’t foreseen or mitigate.
I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.
Centralized organizations with proprietary software can never offer meaningful end to end encryption because they can just ship an app update to disable or backdoor it at any time.
It is better for them to be forced to turn off the security theater so people that need actual privacy can research alternatives.
This is the core issue.
We know that this isn't really going to reduce harm for children, we know Meta is not seriously going to suffer or change, and we know this is going to be used as a cudgel to beat down privacy and increase surveillance.
The lawyers using the finding badly internally doesn’t mean the finding was fundamentally unsound and or won’t ultimately be a positive thing.
> (my emphasis) Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.
Whatsapp and messenger are still fine, then.
No. Meta is backtracking because the business case for and to end encryption is gone. They willingly will give the Trump administration whatever the want because they are not in the business of fighting authoritarian governments, they are in the virtue signalling business when governments are constrained by the rule of law.
The business case was to be able to say “we don’t know”. That case is gone.
Only accounts that exist 14 year plus are elligible for e2e?
It's illegal to hand a minor harmful material. Meta did exactly that. I support people's rights to make and buy sports cars, But it is illegal to hand the keys to a minor and leave them unsupervised.
Rock meet hard place?
Harm to kids is actually happening, and this is always going to be a hot button topic.
E2E is critical for our current ability to communicate online, but will be a lower priority when pitted against child safety.
Fighting the good fight is one thing, fighting for the sake of it, without a plan that addresses the tactical reality is another altogether.
Personally, I think E2E will be defended, but it’s becoming a lightning rod for attention. As if removing encryption will solve the emerging issues.
I suspect providing alternatives to champion, such as privacy preserving ways to verify age, will force a conversation on why E2E needs to go.
> Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta
Absolutely. Particularly where they've been found to be guilty.
> but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption
Why _social media_ companies are backtracking. I'm extremely nonplussed by this outcome.
> concerns that allowing teens
Yes, because that's what we all had in mind when considering the victims and perpetrators of these crimes.
However did we survive all of these years with unencrypted SMS or voice calls?!
This is a good thing for “social” media. If you use any social media app (especially those owned by Meta) you should assume that absolutely everything you do is for full public consumption. Maybe these changes will make everyone stop thinking that anything is private when using “social” media apps.
[dead]
Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security?
We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
The correct nuance here is...
* Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent)
* Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice)
In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus.
Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that without supervision / some setting that the user agent is operated by a child intend to allow their children to interact with strangers. This tends to work out better in more controlled and limited circumstances where the adults involved have the resources to provide suitable supervision.
At the same time, any requirements should apply only to commercial products. Community (gratis / not for profit) efforts presumably reflect the needs of a given community.