Nations unite against Facebook over encryption plans ‘that endanger children’
I will keep saying this: whatever the government&#x27;s true intent might be, this issue isn&#x27;t going away. You can develop good&#x2F;sound tech that either decincientivizes the extrems of platform abuse or detects such abuse while preserving privacy in all other cases and doing all this in a publicly auditable way or the alternative is secret backdoors and device exploitation with zero oversight and transparency.<p>Look, I&#x27;m on HN, I&#x27;m into tech, I work in tech. But nothing absolutley nothing provided by tech is worth tolerating abuse of innocents.   There is no social, legal or historical expectation of infallible privacy for communication. Governments have always had the right to invade privacy provided there is a legal reason to do so. The idea that technology can be used to undermine the first and most basic reason of a government&#x27;s existence (the security of their people and in this case the most innocent members of the people) has only been a thing since around the 90s and the price has been high. You can&#x27;t build bridges only the bad guys can blow up? Then  build bridges anyone can blow up but with a high cost. Anyone can blow up real world bridges with enough money on their hands already!<p>I am not suggesting weaking e2ee crypto but requiring lawful intercept capabilities into messaging apps. Not scanning messages (different topic) for everyone, but giving law enforcement access to the app on the device after being presented with a lawful order. Criminals will just use something else? The  let the government do something else about those other things while catching most that still use popular apps (most robbers use the front door fyi, reduction not elimination of crime is the goal).<p>You don&#x27;t think the government can be trusted? So what, we live in a society. The contract we have with the government is they develop a probable cause and get a judge to sign off on a warrant and in return we expect them to provide security. You don&#x27;t like that contract then let&#x27;s talk about changing it, but if  even one innocent child can be spared these nightmares (or even not so innocent adults!) then technologists are conspiring with criminals if they knowingly refuse to obey laws that have existed long before electricity was even a thing!<p>If the demand is to weaken encryption to allow dragnet surveillance then unless that is lawful in your country (it is not in the US) then why are we even talking about it? If they have a warrant, give them access.<p>FFS! There are RFCs on how to provide lawful intercept access. I am not suggesting anything new. Why is signal or whatever app anymore special than at&amp;t or the postal service? The government and the mailman can open my mail and we vote, send credit cards&#x2F;checks, passports, and many other documents much more critical than anything we say on signal.<p>Please, show me reason here. I am not saying all this just to start an argument or to be contrarian. What am I missing?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rfc-editor.org&#x2F;rfc&#x2F;rfc3924.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rfc-editor.org&#x2F;rfc&#x2F;rfc3924.html</a>