5 ms·

I do find it interesting that Lindsay Graham is one of the main sponsors of this legislation. From the linked article, >The idea is to make providers “earn” Se

I do find it interesting that Lindsay Graham is one of the main sponsors of this legislation. From the linked article, >The idea is to make providers “earn” Section 230 immunity for CSAM claims, by complying with a set of guidelines that would be developed by an unelected commission and could be modified unilaterally by the Attorney General, but which are not actually binding law or rules set through any legislative or agency rulemaking process. The structure and powers of this agency sound kind of like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau setup by the Obama administration. The CFPB was an unelected commission that could create rules financial institutions had to abide by, and dole out punishment in terms of fines, without going through a legislative or rule making process. What were Lindsay Graham's thoughts on the CFPB? >Graham, however, called the agency the "most out-of-control, unaccountable federal agency" in Washington. >"Really no oversight at all," he said. "They can get into everybody's business. I don't think they added much at all to the consumer protection. They sure add a lot to increasing costs for midsize banks throughout the country that had nothing to do with the financial collapse." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/26/graham-durbin-consumer-protection-agency-259969?tab=most-read https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/26/graham-durbin-cons...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sailfast 7y ago
Pedantic but for clarity: CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one of the reasons unaccountability is brought up. Folks often indicate they want a "commission" (similar to SEC or FDIC) instead of an agency with a single director. All that said, yes, this panel of people making "recommendations" that are not laws but have the effect of law seems like a great recipe for selective enforcement based how large or small a company is and what they do, which is not going to do much to solve the bigger issue. Congress is not going to move at the speed of the internet / technology. I'm not sure if that's a named "rule" yet, but it should be. Illegal communities will move. And similarly, conditional "safe harbor" to operate a website should not be a thing. These regs are easily avoided by operating in other countries which will just make the US even less involved and competitive in this space.
- iamatworknow 7y ago
  I just think it's interesting that you can make almost exactly the same argument against this new commission that Graham made against the CFPB with a couple of words swapped out: "They can get into everybody's business. I don't think they added much at all to child protection. They sure add a lot to decreasing privacy for people in the country that had nothing to do with the exploitation of children."
  - KarlKemp 7y ago
    You can make that sort of argument against anything: the FAA, FEC, FCC, National Wetland Agency, etc. What’s euphemistically called "the real world“ simply moves too fast for any legislative body to keep up, let alone the current US Senat. So to some degree, the specific implementation of regulation will always be delegated to agencies.
    - duckMuppet 7y ago
      Agreed. The Obama administration used federal agencies, the FBI, DOJ, and infamously the IRS to target conservative groups. All of these groups tend to be beholden to their particular agendas.
  - sailfast 7y ago
    100%. That said, it would be more surprising to me if he said two things in a row that were logically consistent, not hypocritical, and made sense. I do not expect consistency from that particular gentleman.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  > CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one of the reasons unaccountability is brought up. Of course they could be fired, the legislature could take action and rewrite the law. There is no pedantry required here, it is simply Graham’s trademark hypocrisy.
pjc50 7y ago
Does it matter? What Graham says is purely a matter of partisan support, there's no principle to be discerned.
jeffdavis 7y ago
Hypocrisy is so common for everyone, and especially politicians, that it's not really noteworthy. It's fun to point out but ultimately doesn't convince anyone. (The SCOTUS tries harder than most people to at least appear consistent.)
komali2 7y ago
Pointing out that a politician is a hypocrite is a waste of time. Finding a financial conflict of interest is a waste of time. These days either catch them in a rape or looking at child porn or don't even bother. Was first presented to me in a talk at defcon about hacking public records for political dirt.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sailfast 7y ago

Pedantic but for clarity: CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one of the reasons unaccountability is brought up. Folks often indicate they want a "commission" (similar to SEC or FDIC) instead of an agency with a single director. All that said, yes, this panel of people making "recommendations" that are not laws but have the effect of law seems like a great recipe for selective enforcement based how large or small a company is and what they do, which is not going to do much to solve the bigger issue. Congress is not going to move at the speed of the internet / technology. I'm not sure if that's a named "rule" yet, but it should be. Illegal communities will move. And similarly, conditional "safe harbor" to operate a website should not be a thing. These regs are easily avoided by operating in other countries which will just make the US even less involved and competitive in this space.

iamatworknow 7y ago
I just think it's interesting that you can make almost exactly the same argument against this new commission that Graham made against the CFPB with a couple of words swapped out: "They can get into everybody's business. I don't think they added much at all to child protection. They sure add a lot to decreasing privacy for people in the country that had nothing to do with the exploitation of children."
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  You can make that sort of argument against anything: the FAA, FEC, FCC, National Wetland Agency, etc. What’s euphemistically called "the real world“ simply moves too fast for any legislative body to keep up, let alone the current US Senat. So to some degree, the specific implementation of regulation will always be delegated to agencies.
  - duckMuppet 7y ago
    Agreed. The Obama administration used federal agencies, the FBI, DOJ, and infamously the IRS to target conservative groups. All of these groups tend to be beholden to their particular agendas.
- sailfast 7y ago
  100%. That said, it would be more surprising to me if he said two things in a row that were logically consistent, not hypocritical, and made sense. I do not expect consistency from that particular gentleman.
tehwebguy 7y ago
> CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one of the reasons unaccountability is brought up. Of course they could be fired, the legislature could take action and rewrite the law. There is no pedantry required here, it is simply Graham’s trademark hypocrisy.

pjc50 7y ago

Does it matter? What Graham says is purely a matter of partisan support, there's no principle to be discerned.

jeffdavis 7y ago

Hypocrisy is so common for everyone, and especially politicians, that it's not really noteworthy. It's fun to point out but ultimately doesn't convince anyone. (The SCOTUS tries harder than most people to at least appear consistent.)

komali2 7y ago

Pointing out that a politician is a hypocrite is a waste of time. Finding a financial conflict of interest is a waste of time. These days either catch them in a rape or looking at child porn or don't even bother. Was first presented to me in a talk at defcon about hacking public records for political dirt.