Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Facebook The Courts Slashdot.org

Nevada Sues To Deny Kids Access To Meta's Messenger Encryption (theregister.com) 79

Posted by BeauHD from the attack-on-encryption dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: A law firm acting on behalf of the Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford has asked a state court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) denying minors access to encrypted communication in Meta's Messenger application. The motion for a TRO follows AG's Ford announcement of civil lawsuits on January 30, 2024 against five social media companies, including Meta [PDF], alleging the companies deceptively marketed their services to young people through algorithms that were designed to promote addiction. Nevada was not a party to the two multi-district lawsuits filed against Meta last October by 42 State Attorney General over claims that the social media company knowingly ignored evidence that its Facebook and Instagram services contribute to the mental harm of children and teens. Meta, which lately has been investing in virtual reality and large language models, is also being sued by hundreds of school districts around the US.

The Nevada court filing to obtain a TRO follows from AG Ford's initial complaint. The legal claim cites a statement from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that argues Meta's provision of end-to-end encryption in Messenger "without exceptions for child sexual abuse material placed millions of children in grave danger." The initial complaint's presumably supporting claims, however, have been redacted in the publicly viewable copy of the document. The motion for a TRO, which also contains redactions, contends that Meta -- by encrypting Messenger -- has thwarted state officials from enforcing the Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. "With this Motion, the State seeks to enjoin Meta from using end-to-end encryption (also called 'E2EE') on Young Users' Messenger communications within the State of Nevada," the court filing says. "This conduct -- which renders it impossible for anyone other than a private message's sender and recipient to know what information the message contains -- serves as an essential tool of child predators and drastically impedes law enforcement efforts to protect children from heinous online crimes, including human trafficking, predation, and other forms of dangerous exploitation."

Meta enabled E2EE by default for all users of Messenger in December 2023. But according to the motion for a TRO, "Meta's end-to-end-encryption stymies efforts by Nevada law enforcement, causing needless delay and even risking the spoliation of critical pieces of necessary evidence in criminal prosecutions." The injunction, if granted, would require Meta to disable E2EE for all Messenger users under 18 in Nevada. Presumably that would also affect minors using Messenger who are visiting the Silver State.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nevada Sues To Deny Kids Access To Meta's Messenger Encryption More

Nevada Sues To Deny Kids Access To Meta's Messenger Encryption

Comments Filter:

  • The reality is the opposite: if kids don't have access to encrypted communication, then is easier for abusers, stalkers and predators to spy on them and do their nasty things. Give encryption to kids!

    • Yep, and it makes easier for predators to detect kids, because the metadata that the app client needs to know to tell other users that it cant initiate encryption is 100% proof that the recipient is a minor, One could easily then automate a crawl through the site indexing which users are minors and which are adults. Essential data a predator might use to find his mark.

      • We need to have some sort of effect akin to the Streisand effect that nukes a politicians ability to get reelected should they ever vouch for any sort of carte blanch weakening of any kind of encryption. Think of the children should be a political death sentence when encryption restrictions are concerned. It should be a known thing to need here and common man alike

        • Re: Opposite (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Midnight_Falcon ( 2432802 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @01:26PM (#64273044)

          We need to have some sort of effect akin to the Streisand effect that nukes a politicians ability to get reelected should they ever vouch for any sort of carte blanch weakening of any kind of encryption. Think of the children should be a political death sentence when encryption restrictions are concerned. It should be a known thing to need here and common man alike

          100%. Every time encryption stymies some cops' investigation into who is selling dimebags of weed, they harp on this child sexual abuse boogeyman. This has been going on for 20+ years.

          While CSAM and online predators are despicable, removing encryption wholesale isn't a solution that will even move the needle on enforcement. The question becomes why are random older people able to send children messages at all? Even in that case, where are the parents? The problem can be solved by simply adding an additional encryption key for the parent's accounts, thus allowing parent decryption of any chats.

          Also, why do we allow parents to make money off of sexualizing their children? A recent article (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/us/instagram-child-influencers.html) shows how some parents are monetizing images of their children to a customer base of pedophiles. No encryption involved, just blatant child exploitation...but no one does anything about this. Instead, by this logic, we all have to give up messaging privacy so that basically zero additional pedophiles can be arrested.

          • We allow child beauty pageants, so does this REALLY surprise you?

            • I mean sure, in those pageants (which I think are plain gross) at least it's veiled. In those Instagram comments you've got convicted sex offenders making lewd remarks on pictures of preteens in bikinis. How are these people not instantly arrested or at least investigated? And further , if these people in public chats aren't busted, how will removing encryption from private chats move the needle?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        Meta could say it doesn't work like that and Disable messenger completely for all users connecting from Nevada; which would comply with an order to remove E2E encryption from minors. Then maybe countersue Nevada in Federal court over the disruption to interstate commerce caused by impeding encrypted communications between Minors and users in other states

    • It's ironic that the document stating a case against encryption is redacted.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by phoenix321 ( 734987 )

      "Kids" is the word to describe the offspring of goats. The media has everyone convinced that calling children "kids" doesn't mean a difference in expressing their value to someone. But it does. Don't speak of children like animals.

      Concerning the actual topic, access to encryption does not significantly change the risk of children to be exposed to abuse, grooming and stalking. Children in stable households with intact families have parents, grandparents, older siblings and other family members to protect the

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      What is implied by not said by this is that they monitor all non-encrypted communications "to protect the children". Otherwise what difference does it make, if the police investigate they are going to go to the phones of the people involved and read the plaintext.

  • Think of the children (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @08:20AM (#64272110)

    Yes, by all means do. Think of the future we'll leave for them if we allow governments to spy on every otherwise-private communication they make.

    I have no doubt that encrypted messaging represents a risk to kids in the describe situations. So does snail-mail, albeit at a much slower pace.

    It seems to me that a major part of the solution is early education. And some of the folks agitating for protecting kids are clearly hypocritical, whether they realize it or not. On the one hand, they want to protect the kids' 'innocence' and 'moral purity' - some of them are even pushing the 'holiness' and 'godliness' line. But they can't have it both ways.

    Whether we're talking about the 2020's or the 1960's, a child's best defenses against sexual assault are education, awareness, and being proof against manipulation. All of those are in the hands of parents, society, and the government whose job it is to support them. Those things aren't in the hands of companies who provide the means of private, secure communications.

    • As we're thinking of all of OUR children, it becomes increasingly disturbing to listen to the debates regarding the real "dangers" out there for our kids dance in between rapists and pedophiles, and our own Government. Perhaps the REAL problem here, isn't "encryption". Perhaps that, has become nothing more than the distraction.

      And after seeing what Government has done to education, I do NOT put our children's safety in the hands of government any longer. They represent corporate interests now, not parent

      • As we're thinking of all of OUR children, it becomes increasingly disturbing to listen to the debates regarding the real "dangers" out there for our kids dance in between rapists and pedophiles, and our own Government.

        The call is coming from inside the house. And the senate. [dailykos.com]

        • As we're thinking of all of OUR children, it becomes increasingly disturbing to listen to the debates regarding the real "dangers" out there for our kids dance in between rapists and pedophiles, and our own Government.

          The call is coming from inside the house. And the senate. [dailykos.com]

          Oh, you mean the two-party system pitted against each other by design for the purposes of deploying Weapons of Mass Distraction so they can enrich themselves behind closed doors while pretending to give a shit about said Weapons to a populous just ignorant enough to fall for it, every time they go to the voting booth?

          You mean the "good" House and the "bad" Senate (or vice versa)? Yeah, we'll see just how far this Distraction makes it. I'm guessing about 6 months and at least $50 billion in 'emergency' Thin

          • It isn't the good/bad House and good/bad Senate.

            It is the good/bad red people and the good/bad blue people.

            The other color is always wrong and stupid and uneducated monsters seeking to destroy the very fabric of society. Always.

            Vote for us or those other people will destroy Democracy!

            If you don't vote for us you hate America and you're a traitorous anti-American PutinXi-Loving-Stooge.

            You're with us or against us!

      • The government ran public education just fine for decades. It’s only the last decade where one party has become obsessed with what genitals a person has or where they put them. They also ask a lot of questions about girls menstrual cycles. https://amp.theguardian.com/sp... [theguardian.com]

        Libraries are another fun topic. Jail time if the education ministry does not approve of the reading material. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Whether we're talking about the 2020's or the 1960's, a child's best defenses against sexual assault are education, awareness, and being proof against manipulation. All of those are in the hands of parents, society, and the government whose job it is to support them. Those things aren't in the hands of companies who provide the means of private, secure communications.

      This, The best thing governments have ever done against child abuse/assault is making it easier for children to come forward about it, letting kids know that what their uncle does to them is not normal (or shouldn't be their special secret). As much as we joke about it "show me where he touched you on this doll" has been the single biggest invention against the sexual abuse of children. Sadly, when it comes to child abuse the parents are most often the perpetrators or at least complicit.

      Monitoring messa

  • "Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
    My goodness this tactic gets old.

  • So they admit they spy on minors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Plumpaquatsch ( 2701653 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @08:37AM (#64272156) Journal
    "To protect them".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dusanyu ( 675778 )
      Removing encryption from communications by minos does not necessarily indicate that the Government wants to spy. But it does remove a potential roadblock in the investigation of child abduction or exploitation cases some of these cases can be extremely time sensitive as far as the life of the child is concerned. Secondly denying access to something like encryption is not the same as denying it to an adult and anyone arguing that it is just the first step to denying it to everyone is engaging in a slippery

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by N1AK ( 864906 )
        All true, and a very reasonably presented couterpoint to some of the entirely ideological noise implying there is no possible legitimate justification. The issue I have with your position though is that it doesn't evidence that the benefits of restriction outweigh the downsides, and the slippery slope fallacy doesn't disprove any concern that something will escalate. In this case what's the point of blocking encryption in just Meta Messenger if Whatsapp etc remain encrypted, and to more broadly 'protect' ch

      • There are tens of thousands of reports every year that they don't even investigate.

        Vigilantes are doing their job now.

        This is just an excuse. This may have happened but for the same effort they can stop ten more.

  • The parents have access to the children's messenger account, and if you can't trust them then they'd just help the kids get on Signal or whatever and the whole thing is moot.

    • When my kid turned 13, Google sent us an email explaining that she's now an adult and has full privacy rights and fuck you if you want to snoop on her stuff, you evil bastards.

      • Yeah, my kids' birthdate as far as various corporations are aware corresponds to whatever level of functionality of various services I found desirable, which has ranged from improbably young to born before me.

      • Yes, the parental controls only exist because of COPPA. Not so much that the child has rights but Google is now under no legal obligation to protect them.

    • And for under 13, this means the parent's access should have a decryption key but it by no means makes it so that messages shouldn't be encrypted.

      • But the real issue there is that ages 13-18 are past the federal privacy rule but below the limits in this bill. So they have no "parent" as far as Google or anyone else cares.

  • Again, and again, and again... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @09:10AM (#64272250) Homepage

    Yet another attempt to justify limiting encryption, because "think of the children!"

    Meta's end-to-end-encryption stymies efforts by Nevada law enforcement

    Oh, my heart bleeds...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      ^ Score 4 and still underrated. This is exactly what is happening here and we see it constantly from law enforcement and government agencies. E2EE should be the default on everything and intentionally MITM vulnerable systems need replaced, including HTTPS.

  • The injunction, if granted, would require Meta to disable E2EE for all Messenger users under 18 in Nevada.

    That will work great, so "kids" will just install a free VPN. This gov people are so stupid, with free VPN the issue will be 10x worse. Do people think their children are really stupid ?

    How about ensuring kids do not get a phone until they are say 16 ? Or better yet, give children a proper education, including good sex education. I know the US red states that is against the bible, but it works.

    • Re:That will work (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @09:50AM (#64272392)

      Worse. Anyone who ever was a kid knows that there are a few eternal truths:

      1. Children have way, way, WAY more time than their parents or anyone else that wants to get into the way of their fun.
      2. Children are very eager to learn about technology that gets roadblocks to their fun out of the way.
      3. Anyone in school who knows how to thwart something that stands between kids and their fun rises considerably in the esteem of his peers, something that is paramount for teenagers.
      4. Kids know all these things.

      You think you can win? Good luck.

    • A VPN has nothing to do with this. E2EE protects the path from sender to recipient, disallowing access to the mediator service. Without E2EE you still have client to server encryption with or without a VPN.

      • A VPN has nothing to do with this. E2EE protects the path from sender to recipient, disallowing access to the mediator service. Without E2EE you still have client to server encryption with or without a VPN.

        I think the purpose in using a VPN here is to change your perceived location. As this law applies only in Nevada, young people in Nevada can use a VPN to mask their location and not face the E2EE age restrictions.

    • That will work great, so "kids" will just install a free VPN.

      Or simply lie about their age.

      • More than likely lie about their age. A VPN only works for over-the-wire. Law enforcement gets subpoenas and goes straight to Meta to obtain their conversations. It's incredibly easy to do for them too. You could simply say the wrong thing to a child by accident or that has a different intent/meaning and become a sex offender and they'll have full justification to pull all of your communications.
  • can molest their flock . It'sa slippery slope next you will it's illegal to grift them to.
  • solves the issue, and if kids still acces it hold the parents responsible.
  • HTTPS ensures messages are already sent encrypted over the internet. End-to-end encryption only ensures that Meta cannot scan those messages. Which sounds like a pretty good idea for Minor accounts
    • Meta and every government agency that wants access to them. Next thing you know the FBI is training chat bots using children's messages to "automate" pedophile hunting. End to end encryption is required everywhere, especially with the threat of AI companies buying up your data for use in training their models. If it's public, fine, but private messages / photos? Off limits and requires end-to-end.

  • This is the typical 'think of the children' case we always see dragged out when law enforcement and the state oppose privacy. All communications should have end-to-end encryption enabled by default and not be vulnerable to MITM trust model exploits like HTTPS.

  • Would it be so bad to simply disagree with the solution based on the negative side-effects without assuming bad intentions by the people making the proposal?

    It seems like we could have a more functional society if we do things like draw certain lines (on encryption, in this case), while also acknowledging that other people could have different priorities without being malicious.

  • Shouldn't there be tools in place for parents to see conversations with their minor or any other person they're responsible for?

    What keeps someone from lying about their age, just to decrypt a conversation with others who may not realize it's been done? How much you want to bet that's one of the little "side benefits" of this if it goes through?

  • I fail to see how this is a problem. If there was truly someone that was a pedophile contacting you or your kid, even over encryption, you have the end device to see the messages? That's the weak link. No reason the child's privacy should be violated by a remote potentially baseless warrant.

    I'm completely against grooming, but there are gay rights organizations contacting kids giving them LGBT books behind their parents back and encouraging hate against their parents for being Christian or Trump supporte

Slashdot Top Deals

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

Close