It appears that Lloyd W <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxx> said: >"The IWF, which is responsible for eliminating child sexual abuse imagery from the internet," > >who agreed that responsibility with them? The UK government. They have a role roughly analogous to NCMEC in the U.S. IWF maintains a list of banned web pages which UK ISPs block. You may recall that back in 2008 they blocked a Wikipedia page with a picture of an old album cover that had a picture of a naked very young girl. In that case the IWF had enough sense to back down after people pointed out how absurd that particular block was, but I am confident that the vast majority of the stuff they say to block, you would want to block too. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/dec/09/iwf-wikipedia-unbanned >Warning about the dangers of _introducing_ end-to-end encryption to messaging apps, as Apple >threatens to withdraw already-end-to-end secure Messages and FaceTime from the UK, is very much >relying on and appealing to a non-technical, non-critical thinking, audience. I know people who work on CSAM and while they are uniformly working hard to fight it, they do tend to a degree of tunnel vision and unfortunate assumptions that anyone who makes it harder for them to do their jobs is ignorant or malicious. And then there's the "nerd harder and give us a back door only good people can use" stuff. But that can cut both ways. There is absolutely a lot of bad stuff that is passed through encrypted channels, and shrugging and saying too bad, can't do anything is not going to make us any friends. I agree that on balance the benefits of encryption outweigh the costs, but the costs are real. R's, John
