8 ms·

This is akin to reporting “Giant asteroid on collision course with earth, many journalists expected to be killed.” Basically, the article is saying that the EA

This is akin to reporting “Giant asteroid on collision course with earth, many journalists expected to be killed.” Basically, the article is saying that the EARN IT act would defacto outlaw end-to-end encryption. Thus people could not securely communicate with each other. One group of people affected by this would be journalists trying to securely communicate with sources.

chaps 7y ago
Can you please explain why this isn't a big problem to you?
- catalogia 7y ago
  That doesn't seem to be what was said.
- krastanov 7y ago
  They are saying it is a big problem. A problem much bigger than the already awful "journalists will have hard time protecting sources".
- alibaba_x 7y ago
  He's just noting how the article is focusing entirely on how this bill will affect journalists in particular rather than literally everybody.
  - chaps 7y ago
    That's understood. That's obviously a huge problem, but isn't it worth pointing out one of the bigger issues of the bill? There are many, many people who agree with this bill who may not have thought about this specific issue. It's worth pointing out how the ends that supposedly justify the means, can have major, major faults. The weakening of structures that allow political journalists to expose corruption is not a small issue and should be discussed on its own. In other words, I'm asking: "Why does this topic not deserve its own conversation?"
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >That's understood. That's obviously a huge problem, but isn't it worth pointing out one of the bigger issues of the bill? That's not "one of the bigger issues" of the bill. It's not even that interesting as an issue -- journalists have other ways to talk to sources. Deep Throat didn't use "end to end encryption". But not allowing end to end encryption affects all of society (e.g. everybody's text messages, chat, and voice calls), not just some specific use case of a specific line of work.
      - chaps 7y ago
        One specific example doesn't make the whole set of journalists who need to communicate with others over the internet. Consider that during a pandemic, people are limited in travel, and over the internet is the de facto way of communication. Do you think that a system like this won't be abused in targeting journalists trying to expose corruption? Surely that's a big issue.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        You’re ignoring that E2EE is how anonymous communication is done now, including communicating with journalists.
        coldtea 7y ago
        I'm not ignoring anything. Communications of the masses use electronic media and will continue to do so, and those will be compromised if E2EE is forbidden. Masses aren't gonna stop talking and writing to each other digitally. Journalists however, having a special need to protect their sources, and being aware of a potential lack of E2EE can always find other ways - similar to what they used to hide their sources before E2EE, when their phones could be tapped, etc, including intermediaries, face to face meetings, etc. Journalists might be hurt from killing E2EE, but theirs is less of an issue (and they can take precautions). The big issue is with masses lacking E2EE.
        pmiller2 7y ago
Nasrudith 7y ago
Journalist centered articles far too often have a bad habit of that sort of selfish attitude of thinking protections should be limited to them by some sort of credential and not a "universal press" despite the obvious backfire potential involved with it - or their sources for that matter. Hell even the article is lukewarm criticism instead of speaking truth to power and saying that it is bullshit and so is the purported goal. If you want to stop child molesters you stop the molestors first as opposed to the byproducts. And even though the byproducts do their own damage cracking down on the bulletin boards is completely removed from being helpful.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pmiller2 7y ago
  The way things are going in the US today, I would not be surprised if hindering the free press was an intended effect of this law, rather than a byproduct.
Paul-ish 7y ago
Focusing on concrete harms is important. In front of the supreme court you want to be able to say "This law is devastating to journalism, a fundamental institution in our democracy." Rather than sounding like a screeching privacy activist to nine nontechnical judges.
- smsm42 7y ago
  I wouldn't care if it were devastating only to the current press, it is beyond awful anyway. If it kills privacy that's completely other matter. And SCOTUS judges are anything but stupid, they know what privacy is and how important it is. They maybe don't know technical details of elliptic curve encryption algorithms, but one doesn't need those to understand what's going on, the debate about privacy vs. safety wasn't born yesterday and the judges heard it all already. So no need to pander to anybody, and no need to misrepresent the issue to the public.
  - pilsetnieks 7y ago
    > I wouldn't care if it were devastating only to the current press, it is beyond awful anyway You're confusing the 24/7 TV infotainment with proper journalism. TV anchors peddling stories optimized to maximum viewership for the purpose of advertising is just one aspect to it, and it would be the least hurt by this. Real investigative journalism would be hit much harder.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      If 'real journalism' wasn't long in its grave. Remember '60 minutes'? All rigged to make the reporters look like geniuses, and slanted to make every poor schlep look like a conspirator.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      I'm not confusing anything, I am saying "proper journalism" is not something that is done in the mainstream press now, at least not in the quantities worth talking about. It's an exception rather than the rule. Pretty much nothing in most of the press is optimized for it. So I don't see why anything we do should be optimized for the needs of the press. Privacy is important, but not because the press is special and they need it. It's because we, regular shmoes, need it. If it also helps the press, well, they are people too. But no more people than the rest of us.
snarf21 7y ago
Honest question: Do you think the EARN IT act is NOT specially about ending E2EE?
boomboomsubban 7y ago
Highlighting the potential issues for journalists makes sense, as there you can consider it an unconstitutional violation of the right to a free press. Thiugh I feel it would also be a violation of a combination of the right to free speech and the Tenth Amendment, that line isn't as clear cut.

chaps 7y ago

Can you please explain why this isn't a big problem to you?

catalogia 7y ago
That doesn't seem to be what was said.
krastanov 7y ago
They are saying it is a big problem. A problem much bigger than the already awful "journalists will have hard time protecting sources".
alibaba_x 7y ago
He's just noting how the article is focusing entirely on how this bill will affect journalists in particular rather than literally everybody.
- chaps 7y ago
  That's understood. That's obviously a huge problem, but isn't it worth pointing out one of the bigger issues of the bill? There are many, many people who agree with this bill who may not have thought about this specific issue. It's worth pointing out how the ends that supposedly justify the means, can have major, major faults. The weakening of structures that allow political journalists to expose corruption is not a small issue and should be discussed on its own. In other words, I'm asking: "Why does this topic not deserve its own conversation?"
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >That's understood. That's obviously a huge problem, but isn't it worth pointing out one of the bigger issues of the bill? That's not "one of the bigger issues" of the bill. It's not even that interesting as an issue -- journalists have other ways to talk to sources. Deep Throat didn't use "end to end encryption". But not allowing end to end encryption affects all of society (e.g. everybody's text messages, chat, and voice calls), not just some specific use case of a specific line of work.
    - chaps 7y ago
      One specific example doesn't make the whole set of journalists who need to communicate with others over the internet. Consider that during a pandemic, people are limited in travel, and over the internet is the de facto way of communication. Do you think that a system like this won't be abused in targeting journalists trying to expose corruption? Surely that's a big issue.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      You’re ignoring that E2EE is how anonymous communication is done now, including communicating with journalists.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        I'm not ignoring anything. Communications of the masses use electronic media and will continue to do so, and those will be compromised if E2EE is forbidden. Masses aren't gonna stop talking and writing to each other digitally. Journalists however, having a special need to protect their sources, and being aware of a potential lack of E2EE can always find other ways - similar to what they used to hide their sources before E2EE, when their phones could be tapped, etc, including intermediaries, face to face meetings, etc. Journalists might be hurt from killing E2EE, but theirs is less of an issue (and they can take precautions). The big issue is with masses lacking E2EE.
        pmiller2 7y ago

Nasrudith 7y ago

Journalist centered articles far too often have a bad habit of that sort of selfish attitude of thinking protections should be limited to them by some sort of credential and not a "universal press" despite the obvious backfire potential involved with it - or their sources for that matter. Hell even the article is lukewarm criticism instead of speaking truth to power and saying that it is bullshit and so is the purported goal. If you want to stop child molesters you stop the molestors first as opposed to the byproducts. And even though the byproducts do their own damage cracking down on the bulletin boards is completely removed from being helpful.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pmiller2 7y ago
The way things are going in the US today, I would not be surprised if hindering the free press was an intended effect of this law, rather than a byproduct.

Paul-ish 7y ago

Focusing on concrete harms is important. In front of the supreme court you want to be able to say "This law is devastating to journalism, a fundamental institution in our democracy." Rather than sounding like a screeching privacy activist to nine nontechnical judges.

smsm42 7y ago
I wouldn't care if it were devastating only to the current press, it is beyond awful anyway. If it kills privacy that's completely other matter. And SCOTUS judges are anything but stupid, they know what privacy is and how important it is. They maybe don't know technical details of elliptic curve encryption algorithms, but one doesn't need those to understand what's going on, the debate about privacy vs. safety wasn't born yesterday and the judges heard it all already. So no need to pander to anybody, and no need to misrepresent the issue to the public.
- pilsetnieks 7y ago
  > I wouldn't care if it were devastating only to the current press, it is beyond awful anyway You're confusing the 24/7 TV infotainment with proper journalism. TV anchors peddling stories optimized to maximum viewership for the purpose of advertising is just one aspect to it, and it would be the least hurt by this. Real investigative journalism would be hit much harder.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    If 'real journalism' wasn't long in its grave. Remember '60 minutes'? All rigged to make the reporters look like geniuses, and slanted to make every poor schlep look like a conspirator.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    I'm not confusing anything, I am saying "proper journalism" is not something that is done in the mainstream press now, at least not in the quantities worth talking about. It's an exception rather than the rule. Pretty much nothing in most of the press is optimized for it. So I don't see why anything we do should be optimized for the needs of the press. Privacy is important, but not because the press is special and they need it. It's because we, regular shmoes, need it. If it also helps the press, well, they are people too. But no more people than the rest of us.

snarf21 7y ago

Honest question: Do you think the EARN IT act is NOT specially about ending E2EE?

boomboomsubban 7y ago

Highlighting the potential issues for journalists makes sense, as there you can consider it an unconstitutional violation of the right to a free press. Thiugh I feel it would also be a violation of a combination of the right to free speech and the Tenth Amendment, that line isn't as clear cut.