> I think it's a fair argument in this scenario to say that a platform has a better opportunity to protect minors if messages aren't encrypted

Would it be a fair argument to say the police have a better opportunity to prevent crimes if they can enter your house without a warrant? People are paranoid about this sort of thing not because they think law enforcement is more effective when it is constrained. But how easily crimes can be prosecuted is only one dimension of safety.

> However, an alternative could be allowing the sharing of the encryption key with a parent

Right, but this is worlds apart from "sharing the encryption key with a private company", is it not?

▲

InsomniacL 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Would it be a fair argument to say the police have a better opportunity to prevent crimes if they can enter your house without a warrant?

Police can access your home with a warrant.

Police cannot access your E2EE DMs with a warrant.

	▲	danlitt an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not answering my question! > Police cannot access your E2EE DMs with a warrant. They can and do, regularly. What they can't do is prevent you from deleting your DMs if you know you're under investigation and likely to be caught. But refusing to give up encryption keys and supiciously empty chat histories with a valid warrant is very good evidence of a crime in itself. They also can't prevent you from flushing drugs down the toilet, but somehow people are still convicted for drug-related crimes all the time. So - yes, obviously, the police could prosecute more crimes if we gave up this protection. That's how limitations on police power work.
	▲	allreduce 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		And they shouldn't be able to. Police accessing DMs is more like "listening to every conversation you ever had in your house (and outside)" than "entering your house".
	▲	cucumber3732842 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Police cannot access your E2EE DMs with a warrant. Well the kind of can if they nab your cell phone or other device that has a valid access token. I think it's kind of analogous to the police getting at one's safe. You might have removed the contents before they got there but that's your prerogative. I think this results in acceptable tradeoffs.

▲

gzread 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, that is a fair argument and most countries allow the use of surveillance cameras in public for this reason.