6 ms·

The changes to the existing “Good Samaritan” section basically do what they said they were going to do: change it so that the section about providers not being

The changes to the existing “Good Samaritan” section basically do what they said they were going to do: change it so that the section about providers not being publishers and the section about liability for blocking are independent, and clarify what “good faith” in blocking means. Basically the standard for civil immunity is slightly higher for blocking content than providing content. This is weird and still a big change by itself, but it is a reasonable topic for debate, I think. The new ridiculously named “Bad Samaritan” section is a disaster that wipes out the point of the “Good Samaritan” section and is basically a combination of the mandatory CSA reporting law and SESTA/FOSTA for all federal and state laws. It’s so bad it almost seems like a poison pill.

tboyd47 6y ago
Can you explain more why the section is particularly disastrous? I agree that it's a dumb name. The section: (1) “BAD SAMARITAN” CARVE-OUT. Subsection (c)(1) shall not apply in any criminal prosecution under State law or any State or Federal civil action brought against an interactive computer service provider if, at the time of the facts giving rise to the prosecution or action, the service provider acted purposefully with the conscious object to promote, solicit, or facilitate material or activity by another information content provider that the service provider knew or had reason to believe would violate Federal criminal law, if knowingly disseminated or engaged in.
- analyte123 6y ago
  If someone is selling drugs, distributing copyrighted material, publishing defamatory things, or participating in any other crime on your platform and you know about it, you lose 230 immunity for all content. Maybe this would encourage E2E encryption, but... If you read further, every single provider that allows user content also has to have a tipline for criminal activity and keep records on it.
  - tboyd47 6y ago
    Interesting. Thanks.
  - firebird84 6y ago
    Having a tipline isn't so bad on its own, but then the problem becomes: User leaves unverifiable tip, what do you do with it? It's not like you can break the encryption...
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      Turn it over to law enforcement. A single chat message is rarely a crime, but can be used to find further evidence of crime.
      - some_furry 6y ago
        Turn what over to law enforcement? The ciphertext and timestamp?
        deathgrips 6y ago
        A statement from the user who submitted it, including their unverifiable copy of the offensive message. The law is not computer code. They don't need to break ciphertext to get a warrant.
        some_furry 6y ago
        You can do this thing called "message franking" to make it more verifiable, if you want. The downside is, context matters. If you report messages out-of-order or with important context deleted, you can trick investigators into thinking something was said or implied that actually wasn't. It needs to be carefully designed. (I blog about cryptography, but you should ask a cryptographer if you want to design something like this.)
        deathgrips 6y ago
        I don't design message apps. I just know that law enforcement did just fine before the internet when most communication (face to face, over the phone) wasn't recorded or verifiable.
- Frondo 6y ago
  It is also a dumb name because the phrase "Good Samaritan" comes from the unexpectedly helpful behavior of the original Samaritan -- Samaritans and Jews despised each other, so the man who was ignored by a priest and a Levite, but helped by..of all people!..a Samaritan, found cause to remark on this. (This is all from memory...) Going by the original parable, this should probably just be "Samaritan carve-out," or maybe better yet as just "Bad actor carve-out". Anyway...
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    The obtuseness of the wording definitely stood out.
hughw 6y ago
Any actual Samaritans out there? How do you feel about that language?
- t-writescode 6y ago
  It’s a reference to the Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan. It’s not some racist jab.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    Neither are most other terms, but that counts for little.
  - hughw 6y ago
    I well understand that. My question is whether modern day residents of, or emigrants from, Samaria feel comfortable with the Bad Samaritan characterization. If it were a large demographic in the U.S., there might be a reaction. Then the question becomes, how large a population do you need before you have to speak carefully about a group.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Yeah, I feel like it’s really weird to have such dissonance about this on HN. Like can you imagine if the phrase was something like Good Chinaman? There would be an uproar. To me this is like learning that word for getting scammed is just a dig at the Romani.
  - ohyeshedid 6y ago
    To some folks out there, those weigh the same.
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  I had no idea Samaritans were an extant group of people, but Wikipedia tells me that there are around 1,000 people who self-identify as Samaritan, mostly around Mount Gerizim and Tel Aviv. Fascinating.

tboyd47 6y ago

Can you explain more why the section is particularly disastrous? I agree that it's a dumb name. The section: (1) “BAD SAMARITAN” CARVE-OUT. Subsection (c)(1) shall not apply in any criminal prosecution under State law or any State or Federal civil action brought against an interactive computer service provider if, at the time of the facts giving rise to the prosecution or action, the service provider acted purposefully with the conscious object to promote, solicit, or facilitate material or activity by another information content provider that the service provider knew or had reason to believe would violate Federal criminal law, if knowingly disseminated or engaged in.

analyte123 6y ago
If someone is selling drugs, distributing copyrighted material, publishing defamatory things, or participating in any other crime on your platform and you know about it, you lose 230 immunity for all content. Maybe this would encourage E2E encryption, but... If you read further, every single provider that allows user content also has to have a tipline for criminal activity and keep records on it.
- tboyd47 6y ago
  Interesting. Thanks.
- firebird84 6y ago
  Having a tipline isn't so bad on its own, but then the problem becomes: User leaves unverifiable tip, what do you do with it? It's not like you can break the encryption...
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    Turn it over to law enforcement. A single chat message is rarely a crime, but can be used to find further evidence of crime.
    - some_furry 6y ago
      Turn what over to law enforcement? The ciphertext and timestamp?
      - deathgrips 6y ago
        A statement from the user who submitted it, including their unverifiable copy of the offensive message. The law is not computer code. They don't need to break ciphertext to get a warrant.
        some_furry 6y ago
        You can do this thing called "message franking" to make it more verifiable, if you want. The downside is, context matters. If you report messages out-of-order or with important context deleted, you can trick investigators into thinking something was said or implied that actually wasn't. It needs to be carefully designed. (I blog about cryptography, but you should ask a cryptographer if you want to design something like this.)
        deathgrips 6y ago
        I don't design message apps. I just know that law enforcement did just fine before the internet when most communication (face to face, over the phone) wasn't recorded or verifiable.
Frondo 6y ago
It is also a dumb name because the phrase "Good Samaritan" comes from the unexpectedly helpful behavior of the original Samaritan -- Samaritans and Jews despised each other, so the man who was ignored by a priest and a Levite, but helped by..of all people!..a Samaritan, found cause to remark on this. (This is all from memory...) Going by the original parable, this should probably just be "Samaritan carve-out," or maybe better yet as just "Bad actor carve-out". Anyway...
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  The obtuseness of the wording definitely stood out.

hughw 6y ago

Any actual Samaritans out there? How do you feel about that language?

t-writescode 6y ago
It’s a reference to the Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan. It’s not some racist jab.
- dingaling 6y ago
  Neither are most other terms, but that counts for little.
- hughw 6y ago
  I well understand that. My question is whether modern day residents of, or emigrants from, Samaria feel comfortable with the Bad Samaritan characterization. If it were a large demographic in the U.S., there might be a reaction. Then the question becomes, how large a population do you need before you have to speak carefully about a group.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Yeah, I feel like it’s really weird to have such dissonance about this on HN. Like can you imagine if the phrase was something like Good Chinaman? There would be an uproar. To me this is like learning that word for getting scammed is just a dig at the Romani.
- ohyeshedid 6y ago
  To some folks out there, those weigh the same.
CobrastanJorji 6y ago
I had no idea Samaritans were an extant group of people, but Wikipedia tells me that there are around 1,000 people who self-identify as Samaritan, mostly around Mount Gerizim and Tel Aviv. Fascinating.