5 ms·

Just please go read the latest versions of the bill people https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116

by jjcon 6y ago

Just please go read the latest versions of the bill people https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339... A ton of companies stand to lose by this bill so it may be wise to adopt some skepticism towards all the doom and gloom. This bill is ever evolving and they have been closing the gaps people were worried about re encryption(and now there are complaints about new issues). Are there holes that could be exploited, perhaps but a lot of them have been closed. I know it isn’t popular to say it but this isn’t turning out to be nearly as draconian as most people are making out to be.

blitmap 6y ago
If it has any chance of passing, it could very much cripple the tech sector in the US and make us less competitive. On the other side of the coin, this is not going to stop individuals from using encryption that isn't broken. It would be ugly to see what it does in commercial spaces, and to your average citizen whose data is less protected. I think it would force a knowledgeable subcommunity further into the shadows while everything else burns.
- jjcon 6y ago
  You replied to my comment but you didn’t even read the bill. Read the amendments, they specifically outline that the scope of this bill will not impact encryption laws (which they added specifically because of all the fear-mongering brought by the companies that stand to lose from this bill).
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    I have to admit, I like the look of that amendment. That said, I also liked the look of the part in the ACA where Medicare Part D would be allowed to bargain for drug prices. Pity it wound up on the cutting room floor while I wasn't watching. I wonder how that happened?
  - trianglem 6y ago
    There is nothing in this bill worth having. What exactly are you supporting here?
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      The amendment looks legitimately good, unless they're hustling it to an inappropriately small scope or intend to drop it at the lest second. Both are time honored legislative traditions, of course. “(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding “(paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be “(deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States “(Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall “(not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State “(law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil “(action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because “(the provider— “(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, “(or other encryption services; “(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or “(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the “(provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device “(encryption, or other encryption services.”.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        The amendment, even assuming it ends up in the final bill, only limits one specific type of damage that doing this could cause. The bill as a whole is still malicious garbage with no redeeming value. It's like having a bill giving the FBI regulatory authority over the public school curriculum and then people say that's a terrible idea because they could e.g. prohibit sex education. So then they modify the bill to carve that out in particular. But that was just one specific example. The overall premise of the bill is still inherently damage even if you take out one specific bad thing people were using as an example.
  - blitmap 6y ago
    I apologize, I didn't see the amendment. I did respond out of anger from the encryption standpoint. I still don't like that for a number of other reasons safe harbor can be tossed aside
jjoonathan 6y ago
Do they still want to make a skeleton key for the internet and entrust it to the same people who couldn't protect the database containing secrets from their own background checks and who argue with a straight face that xkeyscore didn't count as a search under the 4th Amendment?
- jjcon 6y ago
  > Do they still want to make a skeleton key for the internet No, this bill never did that and the updates make it explicit that it will not do this. Read the bill.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    They did, last time I RTFB. I do not consider your summaries to be made in good faith. This might just make me angry enough to burn another perfectly good evening on it. We'll see.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Read the goddamn bill, it’s pretty short.
      - jjoonathan 6y ago
        By congressional standards, and at a given point of time. It's not short when measured by the time required to keep up with it.
      - deathanatos 6y ago
        This 112 page bill? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339...
        skipants 6y ago
        It's not really 112 pages. It looks like it's struck-through until the end of page 65. And it's in 16pt font. The toughest part is getting through the legalese.
mtgx 6y ago
> nearly as draconian And you say this is a good thing? That it's only slightly draconian now? Why would we allow them to move the goalposts at all? Especially when they always seem to move in the direction of more mass surveillance and less privacy?
emidln 6y ago
The current version establishes a commission of 19 people which are composed of various interests. Of those interests 2 of are civil liberties experts and 2 of which are computer science or cryptography experts. 14 members are required to pass resolutions. So the cryptographers and civil liberties people can just be ignored by the prosecutors and entrenched corporate representatives. No thanks. This is just as open-ended in the downside as before.
thephyber 6y ago
If the bill still claims to be about "child online exploitation", that's plenty reason to be skeptical. "Think of the children" is a powerful weapon because it's easy for the sponsors to politically assassinate anyone who votes against it. Source: I worked for a company that used that argument when lobbying. I know enough about myself to know I'm not qualified to represent myself in court and I'm not qualified to read the text of a bill and pretend like I understand it. I trust the EFF[1] to represent my values. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still-threatens-encryption-and-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still...
- anonbcpolitics 6y ago
  You don't need to be a lawyer to read this bill, it's pretty short and clear. Even if you don't understand all of it, it's good to read the source so you know you're not getting cherry-picked information.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  By this logic, no legislation can ever seek to reduce online child sexual exploitation
  - thephyber 6y ago
    I'd prefer we stop all sexual exploitation, not just online and not just of children. That said, all new legislation must weigh what is lost against what we anticipate to gain.
Nasrudith 6y ago
It "evolving" isn't a reason to let down your guard, it is more reason to hammer a stake in the bastard's heart before it becomes something even worse. There is nothing good about it.

by jjcon 6y ago

blitmap 6y ago

If it has any chance of passing, it could very much cripple the tech sector in the US and make us less competitive. On the other side of the coin, this is not going to stop individuals from using encryption that isn't broken. It would be ugly to see what it does in commercial spaces, and to your average citizen whose data is less protected. I think it would force a knowledgeable subcommunity further into the shadows while everything else burns.

jjcon 6y ago
You replied to my comment but you didn’t even read the bill. Read the amendments, they specifically outline that the scope of this bill will not impact encryption laws (which they added specifically because of all the fear-mongering brought by the companies that stand to lose from this bill).
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  I have to admit, I like the look of that amendment. That said, I also liked the look of the part in the ACA where Medicare Part D would be allowed to bargain for drug prices. Pity it wound up on the cutting room floor while I wasn't watching. I wonder how that happened?
- trianglem 6y ago
  There is nothing in this bill worth having. What exactly are you supporting here?
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    The amendment looks legitimately good, unless they're hustling it to an inappropriately small scope or intend to drop it at the lest second. Both are time honored legislative traditions, of course. “(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding “(paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be “(deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States “(Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall “(not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State “(law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil “(action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because “(the provider— “(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, “(or other encryption services; “(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or “(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the “(provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device “(encryption, or other encryption services.”.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      The amendment, even assuming it ends up in the final bill, only limits one specific type of damage that doing this could cause. The bill as a whole is still malicious garbage with no redeeming value. It's like having a bill giving the FBI regulatory authority over the public school curriculum and then people say that's a terrible idea because they could e.g. prohibit sex education. So then they modify the bill to carve that out in particular. But that was just one specific example. The overall premise of the bill is still inherently damage even if you take out one specific bad thing people were using as an example.
- blitmap 6y ago
  I apologize, I didn't see the amendment. I did respond out of anger from the encryption standpoint. I still don't like that for a number of other reasons safe harbor can be tossed aside

jjoonathan 6y ago

Do they still want to make a skeleton key for the internet and entrust it to the same people who couldn't protect the database containing secrets from their own background checks and who argue with a straight face that xkeyscore didn't count as a search under the 4th Amendment?

jjcon 6y ago
> Do they still want to make a skeleton key for the internet No, this bill never did that and the updates make it explicit that it will not do this. Read the bill.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  They did, last time I RTFB. I do not consider your summaries to be made in good faith. This might just make me angry enough to burn another perfectly good evening on it. We'll see.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Read the goddamn bill, it’s pretty short.
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      By congressional standards, and at a given point of time. It's not short when measured by the time required to keep up with it.
    - deathanatos 6y ago
      This 112 page bill? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339...
      - skipants 6y ago
        It's not really 112 pages. It looks like it's struck-through until the end of page 65. And it's in 16pt font. The toughest part is getting through the legalese.

mtgx 6y ago

> nearly as draconian And you say this is a good thing? That it's only slightly draconian now? Why would we allow them to move the goalposts at all? Especially when they always seem to move in the direction of more mass surveillance and less privacy?

emidln 6y ago

The current version establishes a commission of 19 people which are composed of various interests. Of those interests 2 of are civil liberties experts and 2 of which are computer science or cryptography experts. 14 members are required to pass resolutions. So the cryptographers and civil liberties people can just be ignored by the prosecutors and entrenched corporate representatives. No thanks. This is just as open-ended in the downside as before.

thephyber 6y ago

If the bill still claims to be about "child online exploitation", that's plenty reason to be skeptical. "Think of the children" is a powerful weapon because it's easy for the sponsors to politically assassinate anyone who votes against it. Source: I worked for a company that used that argument when lobbying. I know enough about myself to know I'm not qualified to represent myself in court and I'm not qualified to read the text of a bill and pretend like I understand it. I trust the EFF[1] to represent my values. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still-threatens-encryption-and-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still...

anonbcpolitics 6y ago
You don't need to be a lawyer to read this bill, it's pretty short and clear. Even if you don't understand all of it, it's good to read the source so you know you're not getting cherry-picked information.
JoeSmithson 6y ago
By this logic, no legislation can ever seek to reduce online child sexual exploitation
- thephyber 6y ago
  I'd prefer we stop all sexual exploitation, not just online and not just of children. That said, all new legislation must weigh what is lost against what we anticipate to gain.

Nasrudith 6y ago

It "evolving" isn't a reason to let down your guard, it is more reason to hammer a stake in the bastard's heart before it becomes something even worse. There is nothing good about it.