30 ms·

It sounds like you accept the bill's authors' claim that EARN-IT is about protecting children. I'd be very interested in hearing from child abuse investigators

by faster 6y ago

It sounds like you accept the bill's authors' claim that EARN-IT is about protecting children. I'd be very interested in hearing from child abuse investigators how the controls in the bill line up with how tech is used in abusing children. My expectation is that there is very little alignment, because "for the children" is most often the rallying cry of politicians who want something that is not in the best interests of the people they are supposed to represent.

zymhan 6y ago
> It sounds like you accept the bill's authors' claim that EARN-IT is about protecting children. No, you're putting words in their mouth. You have your head in the sand if you don't think people use perfectly legitimate encryption service to discuss illegal activity. But that is not a reason to ban encryption. The entire US constitution is built on the premise that people have rights. But it has always been true that some people use their rights to avoid having their criminal activity detected. That doesn't make our rights any less important.
- lukifer 6y ago
  > The entire US constitution is built on the premise that people have rights. As much as I'm near-absolutist on civil liberties, I think it's also valuable to recognize that the intrinsic good of individual rights are only one part of the story; the other is the balance of power between government and the governed. I recently heard Sam Harris opine that from a utilitarian perspective, an absolutist right to privacy pales in comparison to allowing harm to come to children, and so the tech community needs to flex a little on the privacy question, and meet law enforcement halfway. Through that reductionist lens, it's hard to find fault in the argument. The problem isn't limited to privacy, though. Unbreakable digital locks exist, and they aren't going anywhere. [0] And there is power in the ability to keep secrets. You can bet the Feds have little interest in a Panopticon, where they too are obstructed from keeping digital secrets, as "meeting us halfway" for some greater good. Rather, they want to hoard that asymmetric power as their exclusive purview. No matter how well-intentioned, that asymmetry of raw power is something We The People have a vested interest in taking seriously, far beyond some abstract notion of "I want to Google ${CONSENTING_ADULT_SEXUAL_ACTIVITY} without worrying the neighbors will find out". [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo
  - someguyorother 6y ago
    > I recently heard Sam Harris opine that from a utilitarian perspective, an absolutist right to privacy pales in comparison to allowing harm to come to children, and so the tech community needs to flex a little on the privacy question, and meet law enforcement halfway. Through that reductionist lens, it's hard to find fault in the argument. I'd say it's pretty easy. For utilitarianism to make sense, it has to take the future into account. And what looks like an absolutist right to privacy might be a utilitarian argument of the type that if you grant a monopoly of power (private or public) the right to make use of your private information, then it could well use that private information against you later. An integral utilitarian might then say "it's worth some harm to children today to ensure there won't be great harm tomorrow". That kind of being able to trade off different scenarios of harm without regard to absolute principle is pretty much what characterizes (act) utilitarianism.
  - 8note 6y ago
    If privacy isn't an issue, we could insert tracking chips into the children and give them identifying tattoos, then track their locations.
    - DeathArrow 6y ago
      I don't know about US but in EU electronic passports and electronic IDs are becoming mandatory. So all people will have an RFID device with them all the time. And let's not forget the mobile phones which can be localized with high accuracy even without GPS, usually because the device can be seen by more than 3 base stations at a time. The Chinese made mass surveillance even simpler: they have lots of cameras and face detection. We don't have much privacy these days.
      - feanaro 6y ago
        Just because it's possible to use something as a source of information, it doesn't mean it is used as part of a massive dragnet. Yes, it's possible to track phones, but most countries don't have a dragnet implemented based on this information, as far as I'm aware. It's not a lost battle and we still need to push back to ensure it is not.
- Talanes 6y ago
  >“Our goal is to do this in a balanced way that doesn’t overly inhibit innovation, but forcibly deals with child exploitation,” US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said last month in announcing the legislation. Nobody is putting words in anybodies mouth.
  - davidcuddeback 6y ago
    Just because Lindsey Graham said that, doesn't mean Thriptic is agreeing with it.
Thriptic 6y ago
I don't believe that. I'm simply saying that if the stated logic for this bill is that we need to regulate encryption because there is an unacceptable risk of misuse, then my response is that I actually accept the current level of misuse risk given the current level of regulation. Instituting further controls in the form of regulation would cost us more than the perceived reduction of risk that it affords. Obviously this bill is about more than that, but I think that statement pretty much torpedoes their main public argument.
- faster 6y ago
  I completely agree with you about acceptable risk; sorry I misread your last sentence above.
JoeSmithson 6y ago
It's a difficult question to answer because most of what HN complains about is speculation based on assuming bad faith, and doesn't seem to line up with what is actually in the bill (from what I can tell). What specific controls are you asking about?

by faster 6y ago

zymhan 6y ago

> It sounds like you accept the bill's authors' claim that EARN-IT is about protecting children. No, you're putting words in their mouth. You have your head in the sand if you don't think people use perfectly legitimate encryption service to discuss illegal activity. But that is not a reason to ban encryption. The entire US constitution is built on the premise that people have rights. But it has always been true that some people use their rights to avoid having their criminal activity detected. That doesn't make our rights any less important.

lukifer 6y ago
> The entire US constitution is built on the premise that people have rights. As much as I'm near-absolutist on civil liberties, I think it's also valuable to recognize that the intrinsic good of individual rights are only one part of the story; the other is the balance of power between government and the governed. I recently heard Sam Harris opine that from a utilitarian perspective, an absolutist right to privacy pales in comparison to allowing harm to come to children, and so the tech community needs to flex a little on the privacy question, and meet law enforcement halfway. Through that reductionist lens, it's hard to find fault in the argument. The problem isn't limited to privacy, though. Unbreakable digital locks exist, and they aren't going anywhere. [0] And there is power in the ability to keep secrets. You can bet the Feds have little interest in a Panopticon, where they too are obstructed from keeping digital secrets, as "meeting us halfway" for some greater good. Rather, they want to hoard that asymmetric power as their exclusive purview. No matter how well-intentioned, that asymmetry of raw power is something We The People have a vested interest in taking seriously, far beyond some abstract notion of "I want to Google ${CONSENTING_ADULT_SEXUAL_ACTIVITY} without worrying the neighbors will find out". [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo
- someguyorother 6y ago
  > I recently heard Sam Harris opine that from a utilitarian perspective, an absolutist right to privacy pales in comparison to allowing harm to come to children, and so the tech community needs to flex a little on the privacy question, and meet law enforcement halfway. Through that reductionist lens, it's hard to find fault in the argument. I'd say it's pretty easy. For utilitarianism to make sense, it has to take the future into account. And what looks like an absolutist right to privacy might be a utilitarian argument of the type that if you grant a monopoly of power (private or public) the right to make use of your private information, then it could well use that private information against you later. An integral utilitarian might then say "it's worth some harm to children today to ensure there won't be great harm tomorrow". That kind of being able to trade off different scenarios of harm without regard to absolute principle is pretty much what characterizes (act) utilitarianism.
- 8note 6y ago
  If privacy isn't an issue, we could insert tracking chips into the children and give them identifying tattoos, then track their locations.
  - DeathArrow 6y ago
    I don't know about US but in EU electronic passports and electronic IDs are becoming mandatory. So all people will have an RFID device with them all the time. And let's not forget the mobile phones which can be localized with high accuracy even without GPS, usually because the device can be seen by more than 3 base stations at a time. The Chinese made mass surveillance even simpler: they have lots of cameras and face detection. We don't have much privacy these days.
    - feanaro 6y ago
      Just because it's possible to use something as a source of information, it doesn't mean it is used as part of a massive dragnet. Yes, it's possible to track phones, but most countries don't have a dragnet implemented based on this information, as far as I'm aware. It's not a lost battle and we still need to push back to ensure it is not.
Talanes 6y ago
>“Our goal is to do this in a balanced way that doesn’t overly inhibit innovation, but forcibly deals with child exploitation,” US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said last month in announcing the legislation. Nobody is putting words in anybodies mouth.
- davidcuddeback 6y ago
  Just because Lindsey Graham said that, doesn't mean Thriptic is agreeing with it.

Thriptic 6y ago

I don't believe that. I'm simply saying that if the stated logic for this bill is that we need to regulate encryption because there is an unacceptable risk of misuse, then my response is that I actually accept the current level of misuse risk given the current level of regulation. Instituting further controls in the form of regulation would cost us more than the perceived reduction of risk that it affords. Obviously this bill is about more than that, but I think that statement pretty much torpedoes their main public argument.

faster 6y ago
I completely agree with you about acceptable risk; sorry I misread your last sentence above.

JoeSmithson 6y ago

It's a difficult question to answer because most of what HN complains about is speculation based on assuming bad faith, and doesn't seem to line up with what is actually in the bill (from what I can tell). What specific controls are you asking about?