alecm<p><strong>The Fallacy of “Privacy vs: [Children’s] Safety”: why Privacy always wins over any singular concern, and why deployment of #EndToEndEncryption is essentially a binary choice, explained for #NoPlaceToHide</strong></p><p>The <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://alecmuffett.com/article/tag/noplacetohide" target="_blank">#NoPlaceToHide</a> campaign has, as-ever, flushed out a lot of argument like this:</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/MCFcharityUK/status/1484191619595210754" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/MCFcharityUK/status/1484191619595210754</a></p><p>This is pretty easily explained and dismissed; but first, a quick digression.</p><p><strong>Metcalfe’s Law (and its nitpicks)</strong></p><p>There’s a famous law of communications that the ‘value’ (whatever that means) of a ‘network’ increases as the square of the number of participants; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">this is Metcalfe’s Law</a>, and it’s a rough and ready (if <a href="https://spectrum.ieee.org/metcalfes-law-is-wrong" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">arguable and nitpicked</a>) metric to express something intuitive about networking.</p><p>Most typically: if you have a social network with only 10 people on it, then the ‘value’ is 10-squared, or 100, as that’s the maximum number of direct communications relationships that the network can provide; <em>however </em>a network of 250 people can have 250-squared relationships, or 62,500, which is A LOT BIGGER than 100.</p><p>And a network of 1 million people has a value of one trillion, which is immensely bigger; and lo! — a social network containing 1 million people overall tends to be a lot more valuable to its participants — with more <strong>purpose </strong>and information — than a network containing only 10 people.</p>you know that google can do maths for you, right? <p><strong>Okay, but what does this have to do with Children’s Safety and Privacy?</strong></p><p>Basically, if we accept that there’s any meaning at all to Metcalfe’s Law, it means that we are content to measure the value of networks two-dimensionally — the square — which yields the number of relationships that it can hold.</p><p>However, there’s a third dimension which I have already mentioned — <strong>purpose </strong>— and that makes matters even more interesting for comparing relative values.</p><p>With Metcalfe’s law we assume and ignore that we are measuring the value of a general purpose network, but actually if we factor purpose into our maths — if we stop treating “purpose” as a continuum — then we get:</p><p><strong>network value = square(participants) x (number of purposes to which the network can be put by users)</strong></p><p>For a trivial example: when we consider “children’s safety” we are considering this revised Metcalfe’s Law by a large amount; for a network with 100 participants, of whom 33 are kids, and if we consider the kids safety to be 1 purpose, then the value is measured:</p><p>100 (overall participants) x 33 (kids) x 1 (safety) = <strong>3,300</strong></p><p>…but the network value as a whole is probably better measured as something like:</p><p>100 (participants) x 100 (participants) x 100 (purposes) = <strong>1,000,000</strong></p><p>…because there are hundreds, if not thousands of purposes to which a network can be put: sharing with friends, selling cars, charity collections, gig reviews, party invitations, etc; and as such we can see that (like it or not) the value of the network as a whole <strong>vastly </strong>outranks the restricted case of online safety for the subset of kids.</p><p>And the figure of 33% kids is not accidental — child safety advocates tend to quote numbers of one-fifth to one-third of internet users as being children:</p>search: “nspcc” “users are children” <p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p>So there you have it — to rephrase the challenge: <em>“there is no such singular thing as <strong>‘privacy’ </strong>to compare to <strong>‘child safety’</strong>“</em> — because what you are weighing the relatively small set of one-or-a-few “child safety” requirements against is a never-ending list of purposes to which a network can be put:</p><ul><li>securely sending bank details</li><li>organising a surprise birthday party</li><li>sharing a cancer diagnosis</li><li>looking for love</li><li>exploring your sexuality and gender</li><li>escaping an abusive partner</li><li>booking travel tickets</li><li>having an extra-marital affair</li><li>organising an anti-government protest</li><li>seeking abortion advice</li><li>doubting your faith</li><li>and many, many, more, including some which are <em>terrible…</em></li></ul><p>“Privacy” is a feature or quality that is innate to each and all of these purposes — rather than a thing in and of itself — and this is why the hydra-headed use-case that is “privacy” will <strong>always </strong>be more important than any singular, or small tranche, of circumscribed use-cases of any kind whatsoever, irrespective of how we feel about the matter.</p><p>Because the <strong>value of the purpose-space of a network is N-cubed</strong>, and any constraint on one-or-more dimension of that will massively diminish the value of the network.</p><p>And <strong>why is it effectively a binary issue?</strong> Because if the scores are 1,000,000 vs: 3,300 — or whatever — then the bigger number wins. And the number for ‘privacy’ will always be bigger, massively.</p> <a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/copy_link?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/threads?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/whatsapp?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/mastodon?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Falecmuffett.com%2Farticle%2F15940&linkname=The%20Fallacy%20of%20%E2%80%9CPrivacy%20vs%3A%20%5BChildren%E2%80%99s%5D%20Safety%E2%80%9D%3A%20why%20Privacy%20always%20wins%20over%20any%20singular%20concern%2C%20and%20why%20deployment%20of%20%23EndToEndEncryption%20is%20essentially%20a%20binary%20choice%2C%20explained%20for%20%23NoPlaceToHide" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><a class="" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a> <p>⊞</p><p><a href="https://alecmuffett.com/article/15940" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alecmuffett.com/article/15940</a></p><p><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://alecmuffett.com/article/tag/end-to-end-encryption" target="_blank">#endToEndEncryption</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://alecmuffett.com/article/tag/metcalfes-law" target="_blank">#metcalfeSLaw</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://alecmuffett.com/article/tag/noplacetohide" target="_blank">#noplacetohide</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://alecmuffett.com/article/tag/online-abuse" target="_blank">#onlineAbuse</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://alecmuffett.com/article/tag/online-safety" target="_blank">#onlineSafety</a></p>