4 ms·
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)
by 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 agoIf 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 agoInteresting. Thanks.
- firebird84 6y agoHaving 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 agoTurn 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 agoTurn what over to law enforcement? The ciphertext and timestamp?
- deathgrips 6y agoA 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 agoYou 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 agoI 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.
- Spivak 6y agoIf we’re talking about content that you literally don’t have access to and can’t see because it’s encrypted, like iMessage or Signal then you don’t need Section 230 protection because you aren’t moderating content.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoSounds like we are turning our entire website infrastructure into a 1984 monitoring system
- webmaven 6y ago> Sounds like we are turning our entire website infrastructure into a 1984 monitoring system It already is one for all intents purposes, just not one that is used ubiquitously (except in the sense of getting us to buy stuff). All that is changing is that the panopticon is becoming slightly more explicit than implicit, making it that much easier to (eventually) flip a policy switch that designates groups wholesale as "enemies of the people" requiring active scrutiny and interference. I'm reminded of this cartoon: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-x2BP9Xd7xfo/T7bvuweLPfI/AAAAAAAACjQ/SPcXLcudnIY/s1600/Internet+Wrapped.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-x2BP9Xd7xfo/T7bvuweLPfI/AAAAAAAACj... Twenty years later and it is still fresh as a daisy.
- 082349872349872 6y agoIngsoc didn't monitor proles, and didn't always monitor inner party members, so I'd claim its monitoring reach was only somewhere between half and a quarter of our entire website infrastructure. Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6LGrr8iEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6LGrr8iEg
- Frondo 6y agoIt 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 agoThe obtuseness of the wording definitely stood out.