Only because they are not informed about what this is actually about. It's all about framing.
* Do you want the police to have better tools to fight child abuse? -> Of course!
* Do you want the police to see what private messages you are sending to your loved ones so that they can ensure that you are not a pedophile? -> Hell no!
Most people doesn't even care anymore, they know they're always spied on when they use messenger or instagram (covering the whole age spectrum here), they'll always hit you with the "I don't have anything to hide"
Most conversations I have with non-techy people, they end up saying "Yes" to both.
Later her friends agreed that it happens for them too and didn't believe me when I suggested other possibilities.
[1] In reality, most likely ad targeting based on her online habits works as intended.
There are ads utilizing this trope now
Then mention that disease a few times in the presence of your Alexa, Siri, or Google whatever. Talk about the disease to your wife on a phone call once or twice (make sure she's in on it, so she knows never to type the disease into a search engine).
See if you start getting ads for treatment for that disease.
It's a little crazy, but I'm not convinced it's impossible. I've something similar to me happen a couple times, but not under rigorously controlled circumstances, so maybe it was google searches by a relative or friend who overheard me, and I was marketed to by association? Maybe somebody with that disease visited my house and their location was broadcast and linked to my wifi?
Unsettling, any way you cut it.
What exactly is your justification for regarding your right to privacy in your communication with your loved ones is more important than the right of the police to fight child abuse?
I believe most people would not agree with this exact proposition, but with a different one: that once the police is given the power to fight child abuse, which can only be given by allowing them to access private communications of anyone suspect of being involved in such crime, then there will be abuse of power and they will use that access to also fight other crimes or even for political gain, as tends to happen in authoritarian states.
I would absolutely be willing to forego my right to privacy under certain circumstances given that there were strong enough guardrails in place to prevent abuse in the future if that would allow child abuse and other hideous crimes to be prevented - it would be immoral to not do so. However, as most other people in tech, I have enough knowledge to understand that it would not be possible at all to prevent abuse with current technology - once the power exists at all to break into communications, anyone with enough motivation and resources available will be able to do it, not just the intended receipients of such power, unfortunately.
If you really want people on the other side of the debate to understand you, you need to stop being so simplistic - there are very good justifications for their positions if you remove the practical limitations of being able to stop abuse - which they do not understand, and I suspect a lot of people in tech even also fail to comprehend.
I would even go as far as to say that future technology may change this: it may be possible to have completely abuse-proof technologies in the future which, if it existed, would make me change my position on this matter.
For example, something that uses blockchain technology to make it cryptographically impossible for the police to access someone's communications without having a warrant?? And making that warrant only usable by the police if it was also approved by a number of different, independent groups, including groups advocating for privacy (something like a "smart contract" could do this?)??
You can say these are stupid ideas, and I would probably agree... but my point is that this may not be impossible, and perhaps people who are really concerned about privacy while also having an understanding of why the police may need this sort of power should be actually trying to find ways to do this properly instea d of just keeping repeating the mantra that no, this is impossible and we'll have to live with child abuse , terrorism etc. forever?!
Violation of privacy is harmful. The police is not supposed to cause unnecessary harm. Given that the vast majority of people are not child abusers, there will be a great amount of harm for no gain. And most child abusers will find ways to evade the surveillance. This is not even remotely close to a reasonable bargain.
> If you really want people on the other side of the debate to understand you, you need to stop being so simplistic
We were talking about the general population and how they perceive the same topic given different framings. Most people think in simplistic terms when it comes to topics that they don't actively engage with.
> there are very good justifications for their positions if you remove the practical limitations of being able to stop abuse - which they do not understand, and I suspect a lot of people in tech even also fail to comprehend.
Are there very good reasons to fight child abuse? Of course. But if non-technical people believe that there is a magical technology that can deliver what politicians claim then you have to challenge them to explain where their beliefs come from. And precisely because they actually don't understand the technology they have to admit that they actually can't form a well-founded opinion on it. You might not be able to make them understand why the practical limitations make this a bad idea, but you can make them understand that there is an important gap in their knowledge on the topic. And something that everyone can understand is: Not every solution is actually a good or even effective solution.