The article quotes a Unicef report that I can't find a good source for, and the Phillipines being problematic in this respect is something that is not exactly a secret, it is where a lot of 'production' happens. I'm sure if you dig around a bit you'll find lots of corroboration for that datum. Anyway, I'm on the clock and only look at HN during breaks right now, if not for that I'd be more than happy to find better references.
> The article quotes a Unicef report that I can't find a good source for,
And what does this Unicef report say?
> and the Phillipines being problematic in this respect is something that is not exactly a secret
Terms like "problematic" are excellent for persuasion, as they exclude any quantitative component as they invoke fear.
> I'm sure if you dig around a bit you'll find lots of corroboration for that datum.
Like the fear mongering article you linked?
Look, I'm not advocating for the abuse of children, but when I'm being encouraged to worry about something, I prefer the warnings to have some basis in fact.
Minimizing the incidence of digitally-enabled child abuse is not a winning strategy for protecting our right to use strong encryption.
For one thing, it puts you in the position of defining what incidence of child abuse is low enough to be somehow acceptable. Is the Internet helping one person to abuse a child? Any normal person would say that even one is unacceptable.
For another thing, it can easily make you look like an unserious fool because the people you're arguing with--law enforcement--are going to know way more than you do about the actual incidence of these particular crimes. They are privy to every ongoing investigation, and are generally not legally permitted to tell you about them.
We don't need to doubt the good faith of law enforcement--at least on this issue of child abuse--to advocate against encryption backdoors.
Encryption backdoors are a bad idea because they can be later abused or hacked, causing untold harm.
And we get to use strong encryption for the same reason we get to deny the government placing cameras in our houses. We get strong encryption for the same reason we get to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Efficacy or efficiency for law enforcement is not enough, and should not be enough, to supersede our rights to privacy, expression, assembly, etc.
> I prefer the warnings to have some basis in fact.
What would you consider a fact? A half dozen links to such content?
Really, I'm not sure what you are getting at here, there is plenty of evidence for this stuff being real and being sourced from a limited number of countries if you want to argue the opposite then I'm perfectly ok with that. But that Unicef report is there for you to read and if that does not convince you likely nothing will.
Just like NL has a - justified - bad reputation for hosting a lot of this content so the Philippines have - unfortunately - a bad reputation for being on the producing end. For a while it was Thailand, then the Thai really cracked down on the sex tourists and the child porn production and so the producers shifted to another location.
> What would you consider a fact? A half dozen links to such content?
Well, one link would be a start. And to consider something a fact, I'd generally want to see some evidence. When I'm told something is a fact but there is no evidence to support the assertion, or if the evidence turns out to be an estimate with questionable methodology methodology (say, 1 In 5 College Women Are Sexually Assaulted), then I tend to lower my opinion on the honesty of the individual or person involved.
> But that Unicef report is there for you to read and if that does not convince you likely nothing will.
It is?
> For a while it was Thailand, then the Thai really cracked down on the sex tourists and the child porn production and so the producers shifted to another location.
I don't follow Thailand terribly closely, but I'd be interested to know details about this, particularly how they know child porn producers were there but left.
