Facebook risks being 'one-stop grooming shop', NSPCC warns

phenomlab

I read this article with some interest - https://news.sky.com/story/facebook-risks-being-one-stop-grooming-shop-over-encryption-plans-nspcc-warns-11878469.

Not only does it contain salient points - particularly around safeguarding children, but it also makes a good point of enforcing the concern that if end-to-end encryption if offered for Facebook Messenger, for example, then such a precedent would allow sex offenders to effectively operate under the radar, and go largely undetected. However, there is a fine line in terms of balance here. The pro privacy groups will no doubt be delighted by such a move - I for one am a privacy advocate, but only in the context where such encryption protects the individual using the platform against eavesdropping for the right reasons. Let’s look at the flip side.

If Facebook takes this route and encrypts all conversations on Facebook Messenger, then how will it police the content ? Privacy purists will no doubt argue that the point of encryption is to render that conversation illegible, meaning it cannot and should not be policed - but where do you draw the line ? The NSPCC (rightfully so) is concerned that taking this route could mean that Facebook Messenger is then abused as a platform - therefore allowing the perpetrators of grooming children to operate “under the radar”.

I’m setting up a poll for this topic, as I find the implications wide-ranging for those on both sides of the fence. I have my own views, and I’ll be the first to vote - plus argue my reasoning for doing so.

phenomlab

And here, I’m stating my reasons for the answer I provided (which is “yes”, by the way)

We live in a world where terrorists, those involved in organised crime, cyber criminals, and paedophiles all hide behind the very tools we created to ensure the privacy of our data - thus known as encryption. There have been a number of cases involving terrorism where law enforcement needed access to messages stored on encrypted devices, and had to go to (in some cases) extraordinary lengths to obtain access to that same data. Such examples of this are the San Bernardino terror attacks, the Westminster terror attack and many more.

Clearly, attacks such as this take coordination, and planning. Planning, where is has been proven that the chosen mechanism of communication are those channels that support encryption. WhatsApp and iMessage are two of many platforms that offer this as a standard, but these communications where the content is designed to cause widespread harm to human life (in my view) will always negate the right to privacy. What I mean by this is that I am a firm advocate of using Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning to process these communications, and if any suspicion of terrorist, criminal, or otherwise illegal (for example, grooming) act is present, then the message should be flagged to law enforcement in order for them to take the appropriate action.

Whilst my stance here obviously contradicts my belief of the right to privacy, I firmly believe that there are circumstances where such a right should not be given. The bottom line is that privacy is being abused for nefarious purposes - we need to find the balance where it can be used to protect innocents, the intended victims of crime, and at the same time, unmask those who seek to hide behind the very veil we created - encryption.