Are you kidding me? How do you think predators get in contact with children? Over social media that children use, obviously.
And of course many criminals use chat. Most have no clue about encryption, like the vast majority of humans.
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the vast, vast majority of the perpetrators of these offenses are either family members, or known and trusted people to the family, such as the friends of an older sibling, friends of parents, stepparents, teachers, priests, etc. The bogeyman of the evil stranger paedo lurking on social media cold-calling random kids is an edge case.
I thought it was in fashion. Happens where I live.
Well, the point is to scan all messages, period.
And then to detect those that come from predators, not adults. How often do parents convince their children to send... revealing pictures? Or to meet them somewhere? How often do parents introduce themselves to their children in messages?
You can't seriously believe that a conversation between parents and children always looks like a conversation between a predator and children, can you?
YES. That's the problem. Whoever controls it has that power. We don't want that. That's the argument against ChatControl: "imagine that those who get in power are against you, and imagine what they can do if they abuse this tool".
But saying that "a law enforcement officer may see a false-positive between a parent and their child and I find this insufferable" won't convince many people, IMHO.
Seems like a terrible idea.
I am saying this:
> You can't deny that if you can read all communications, then it's easier to detect CSAM than if you can't even see it.
I am against ChatControl, but people who say "it shouldn't exist because it is useless because it cannot ever help detect anything illegal" are wrong.
It doesn't help the cause to flood people with invalid arguments.