> There are 2 things we can do with these types of people:

> 1) We can educate them about the dangers of banning encryption and encourage them to research more about the problem. We can remain open to other proposals that they have, while making it clear that each proposal's social benefits have to be weighed against their social costs.

> or

> 2) We can offer them some kind of compromise solution that may or may not actually address their problem, but will make them feel like it does, and which will in theory make them less likely to try and ban encryption.

Why are those the only two solutions? That seems like a false dichotomy.

Again why would you think I’m suggesting #2.

Can I ask you straight up, are you trolling?

There is a pattern where you say “I think you are saying X” where X is unrelated to anything I have actually said. I ask “why do you think I think X”, and you don’t answer, but just move on to repeat the process.

I have been assuming there is good faith misunderstanding going on, but the fact that you keep not explaining where the misunderstandings have arisen from when asked is starting to make me question that.

Most of what you’ve written in this reply is frankly incoherent, or at least seems to be based on assumptions about my position that are neither valid nor obvious, as to make it seem seem unconnected from our previous discussion.

For example this:

> To me, if someone comes to me and says, "I'm not interested in hearing about the downsides of banning encryption, come up with a solution or we'll ban it anyway" -- I don't think that person is reasonable, I don't think they're acting rationally, and certainly I'm not interested in working with that person or coming up with solutions with that person.

Just seems like a gibberish hypothetical that doesn’t have much to do with what we are talking about.

And this:

> You could come up with the most innovative amazing reduction strategy for CSAM ever conceived, and it would not change any of those people's opinions on encryption.

What does it even mean to ‘reduce CSAM’? Why do we care about changing people’s minds here about encryption?

Let’s take another part:

> Where I fall on this is that I am totally willing to look for alternative solutions; but encryption, device ownership, privacy, and secure software -- these are not prizes to be won, conditional on me finding a solution.

Ok, but those are all in fact fluid concepts whose status is changing as time goes by, and mostly not in the directions it sounds like you would prefer. Nobody is thinking of them as prizes. The status quo is that they are in jeopardy.

> We can look for a solution together once we've taken those things off the table.

Ok, but this just means you aren’t willing to participate with people who don’t agree to a set of terms, which in fact don’t represent anything anyone has so far developed.

That’s a comment about your personal boundaries not about whether a better solution than what Apple is proposing could be built.

That’s fine by me, in fact I’d be happy if a solution did incorporate all of the concepts you require. I agree we need that. I argue for it quite often.

I don’t think such a thing has been built yet, and if it were built, I suspect parents would like to have some mechanism to control whether it was. vector of child exploitation before they let their kids use it.

So what would that solution look like?