> Neither of us disagree that such people exist. Indeed we both believe that they do.

> Why does changing such a person’s mind matter?

Okay, finally! I think I understand why we're disagreeing. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding your views below.

> You’ll need to explain what the contradiction is.

I kept getting confused because you would agree with me right up to your conclusion, and then suddenly we'd both go in opposite directions. But here's why I think that's happening:

You agree with me that there are irrational actors that will not be convinced by any kind of reason or debate that their fears are irrational. You agree with me that those people will never stop calling to ban encryption, and that they will not be satisfied by any alternative you or I propose. But you also believe there's another category of people who are "semi-rational" about child abuse. They're scared of it, maybe not for any rational reason. But they would be willing to compromise, they would be willing to accept a "solution" that targeted some of their fears, and they might be convinced than an alternative to banning encryption is better.

Where we disagree is that I don't believe those people exist -- or at least if they do exist, I don't believe they are a large enough or engaged enough demographic to have any political clout, and I don't think it's worth trying to court them.

My belief is that by definition, a fear that is not based on any kind of rational basis is an irrational fear. I don't believe there is a separate category of people who are irrationally scared of child predators, but fully willing to listen to alternative solutions instead of banning encryption.

So when you and I both say that we can't convince the irrational people with alternative solutions, my immediate thought is, "okay, so the alternative solutions are useless." But of course you think the alternative solutions are a good idea, because you think those people will listen to your alternatives, and you think they'll sway the encryption debate if they're given an alternative. I don't believe those people exist, so the idea of trying to sway the encryption debate by appealing to them is nonsense to me.

In my mind, anyone who is rational enough to listen to your arguments about why an alternative to breaking encryption is a good idea, is also rational enough to just be taught why banning encryption is bad. So for people who are on the fence or uninformed, but who are not fundamentally irrationally afraid of encryption, I would much rather try gently reaching out to them using education and traditional advocacy techniques.

----

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and maybe there is a political group of "semi-rational" people who are

A) scared about child abuse

B) unwilling to be educated about child abuse or to back up their beliefs

C) but willing to consider alternatives to breaking encryption and compromising devices.

If that group does exist, then yeah, I get where you're coming from. BUT personally, I believe the history of encryption/privacy/freedom debates on the Internet backs up my view.

Let's start with SESTA/FOSTA:

First, Backpage did work with the FBI, to the point that the FBI even commented that Backpage was going beyond any legal requirement to try and help identify child traffickers and victims. Second, both sex worker advocates and sex workers themselves openly argued that not only would SESTA/FOSTA be problematic for freedom on the Internet, but that the bills would also make trafficking worse and make their jobs even more dangerous.

Did Backpage's 'compromise' sway anyone? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who opposed sites like Backpage but were willing to listen to arguments that the bills would actively make sex trafficking worse? No, those people never showed up. The bills passed with broad bipartisan support. Later, several Senators called to reexamine the bills not because alternatives were proposed to them, but because they put in the work to educate themselves about the stats, and realized the bills were harmful.

Okay, now let's look at the San Bernardino case with Apple. Apple gave the FBI access to the suspect's iCloud account, literally everything they asked for except access to decrypt the phone itself. Advocates argued that the phone was unlikely to aid in the investigation, and also suggested using an exploit to get into the phone, rather than requiring Apple to break encryption. Note that in this case the alternative solution worked, the FBI was able to get into the phone using an exploit rather than by compelling Apple to break encryption. The best case scenario.

Did any of that help? Was there a group of semi-reasonable people who were willing to listen to the alternative solution? Did the debate cool because of it? No, it changed nothing about the FBI's demands or about the political debate. What did help was Apple very publicly and forcefully telling the FBI that any demand at all to force them to install any code for any reason would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. So minus another point from compromise as an effective political strategy in encryption debates, and plus one point to obstinance.

Okay, now let's jump back to early debates about encryption: the clipper chip. Was that solved by presenting the government and concerned citizens with an alternative that would better solve the problem? No, it wasn't -- even though there were plenty of people who argued at the time for encryption experts to work with the government instead of against it. Instead the clipper chip problem was solved both when encryption experts broke the clipper chip so publicly and thoroughly that it destroyed any credibility the government had in claiming it was secure, and it was solved by the wide dissemination of strong encryption techniques that made the government's demands impossible, over the objections of people who called for compromise or understanding of the government's position.

----

I do not see any strong evidence for a group of people who can't be educated about encryption/abuse, but who can be convinced to support alternative strategies to reduce child abuse. If that group does exist, it does a very good job of hiding, and a very bad job of intervening during policy debates.

I do think that people exist who are skeptical about encryption but who are not so irrational that they would fall into our category of "impossible to convince." However, I believe they can be educated, and that it is better to try and educate them than it is to reinforce their fears.

Because of that, I see no political value in trying to come up with alternative solutions to assuage people's fears. I think those people should either be educated, or ignored.

It is possible I'm wrong, and maybe you could come up with an alternative solution that reduced CSAM without violating human rights to privacy and communication. If so, I would happily support it, I have no reason to oppose a solution that reduces CSAM if it doesn't have negative effects for the Internet and free culture overall, a solution like that would be great. However, I very much doubt that you can come up with a solution like that, and if you can, I very much doubt that outside of technical communities anyone will be very interested in what you propose. I personally think you would be very disappointed by how few people arguing for weakening encryption right now are actually interested in any of the alternative solutions you can come up with.

And it's my opinion, based on the history of privacy/encryption, that traditional advocacy and education techniques will be more politically effective than what you propose.