4 ms·

If it truly can't identify activity then does it need Section 230 in the first place? The immunity granted by Section 230 is for people who want the ability to

by saurik 6y ago

If it truly can't identify activity then does it need Section 230 in the first place? The immunity granted by Section 230 is for people who want the ability to moderate content, and if you are merely a dumb pass-through of a bunch of encrypted information you aren't using it as you are more of a common carrier, right?

ROARosen 6y ago
Exactly. They are also basically saying you don't need to moderate most illicit activity (if it's an unmoderated format) but you essentially can't operate such a platform in a form where it is "unmoderateable"/untraceable because you should be liable for any unlawful content that goes up, and for the the fact that you facilitated it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
treis 6y ago
The law provides them immunity from civil suits. Apple as a provider can say they comply with section 230 and avoid any legal liability from people that may be harmed by their actions. In other words, you can't sue Apple because someone used iCloud to distribute child porn of you. The essential bargain struck for 230 was that providers get immunity in exchange for policing their system and helping law enforcement. Apple et al removing their ability to police their systems breaks that bargain.
- saurik 6y ago
  Ok, so I was under the impression that if you are say, a telephone network, that people can't sue you for stuff people do during phone calls, under the premise that the phone company doesn't moderate phone calls; and my understanding of the "bargain struck" is then that online web forums felt that centralized moderation was absolutely critical to spam prevention and search/discovery services (I disagree on the practicalities here, but will admit that with 90s era tech and under the premise of the specific model of website this seems reasonable to have believed and legislate for), and so wanted the ability to "have their cake and eat it too": to be able to decide almost on a whim to take down content--and thereby to have people active to looking at content to decide what to take down--but not to be responsible for those editorial decisions, as they wanted to do their supposedly-required moderation tasks with limited staff and "after the fact": and so, if they "decide" (quite likely by negligence) to leave something up that they should not have published, Section 230 grants them immunity with some provisions. It doesn't seem like a truly end-to-end encrypted service--such as iMessage or iCloud Keychain (but absolutely not iCloud Backup, which has a key escrow backdoor: it should be end-to-end encrypted, but explicitly isn't) needs this immunity, right?
  - treis 6y ago
    They may or may not. A victim of child pornography can argue that Apple is liable because they provide a secure platform to distribute the images. Or maybe a victim of a crime might sue because Apple refused to help. Section 230 prevented those types of lawsuits. Without it, who knows?
  - qball 6y ago
    That impression is correct; the precedent is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.). A lot of people don't really seem to understand that about S. 230- services that exist basically to pass messages have never needed the protection and that won't change. The best example outside of messaging services is probably content delivery networks, and I'll pick on CloudFlare because they're a great example. As long as CloudFlare is fine with just taking money and serving content, no matter whose it is, they have the legal immunity as intended. As soon as they decide (on a whim) to deny service based on content, as they did a while back, that legal immunity vanishes. It would be catastrophic to their business to make that decision (especially considering everything else CloudFlare hosts), and that's the point. It's also very interesting considering that the changes also appear to affect Patreon (and similar) and, perhaps a bigger deal, PayPal, since it's an interactive computer service used to fund the creation of information (among other things). In fact, I think that's an even bigger deal, because it's not necessarily traditional platforms banning certain people that causes them to be denied a platform these days, it's the inability of them to get funding in a way that isn't "send cash to this PO Box".
    - judge2020 6y ago
      > As long as CloudFlare is fine with just taking money and serving content, no matter whose it is, they have the legal immunity as intended. As soon as they decide (on a whim) to deny service based on content, as they did a while back, that legal immunity vanishes. It would be catastrophic to their business to make that decision (especially considering everything else CloudFlare hosts), and that's the point. Except that they already do moderate based on content (malware, CP, etc) and don't have this immunity. The only reason they haven't been sued is because no lawyer or legal team is going to take on 8chan or random malware websites, and state-level DOJs don't have bad actors knocking on their door with the public's support behind them.
- WiseWeasel 6y ago
  Except Apple doesn’t encrypt iCloud uploaded content with client-side-stored encryption keys. It has been and will continue to be subpeonable. Section 230 concerns internet services, not all technology.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  The question is where do you draw the line. Apple consciously decides not to collect or track certain things about users. Yet that data could also reveal illicit activity, which means Apple is knowingly turning a blind eye to illicit activity. Further, any data about users could potentially uncover illicit activity, meaning a provider could essentially be required to track everything possible in order to avoid ignoring potential illicit content.

by saurik 6y ago

ROARosen 6y ago

Exactly. They are also basically saying you don't need to moderate most illicit activity (if it's an unmoderated format) but you essentially can't operate such a platform in a form where it is "unmoderateable"/untraceable because you should be liable for any unlawful content that goes up, and for the the fact that you facilitated it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

treis 6y ago

The law provides them immunity from civil suits. Apple as a provider can say they comply with section 230 and avoid any legal liability from people that may be harmed by their actions. In other words, you can't sue Apple because someone used iCloud to distribute child porn of you. The essential bargain struck for 230 was that providers get immunity in exchange for policing their system and helping law enforcement. Apple et al removing their ability to police their systems breaks that bargain.

saurik 6y ago
Ok, so I was under the impression that if you are say, a telephone network, that people can't sue you for stuff people do during phone calls, under the premise that the phone company doesn't moderate phone calls; and my understanding of the "bargain struck" is then that online web forums felt that centralized moderation was absolutely critical to spam prevention and search/discovery services (I disagree on the practicalities here, but will admit that with 90s era tech and under the premise of the specific model of website this seems reasonable to have believed and legislate for), and so wanted the ability to "have their cake and eat it too": to be able to decide almost on a whim to take down content--and thereby to have people active to looking at content to decide what to take down--but not to be responsible for those editorial decisions, as they wanted to do their supposedly-required moderation tasks with limited staff and "after the fact": and so, if they "decide" (quite likely by negligence) to leave something up that they should not have published, Section 230 grants them immunity with some provisions. It doesn't seem like a truly end-to-end encrypted service--such as iMessage or iCloud Keychain (but absolutely not iCloud Backup, which has a key escrow backdoor: it should be end-to-end encrypted, but explicitly isn't) needs this immunity, right?
- treis 6y ago
  They may or may not. A victim of child pornography can argue that Apple is liable because they provide a secure platform to distribute the images. Or maybe a victim of a crime might sue because Apple refused to help. Section 230 prevented those types of lawsuits. Without it, who knows?
- qball 6y ago
  That impression is correct; the precedent is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.). A lot of people don't really seem to understand that about S. 230- services that exist basically to pass messages have never needed the protection and that won't change. The best example outside of messaging services is probably content delivery networks, and I'll pick on CloudFlare because they're a great example. As long as CloudFlare is fine with just taking money and serving content, no matter whose it is, they have the legal immunity as intended. As soon as they decide (on a whim) to deny service based on content, as they did a while back, that legal immunity vanishes. It would be catastrophic to their business to make that decision (especially considering everything else CloudFlare hosts), and that's the point. It's also very interesting considering that the changes also appear to affect Patreon (and similar) and, perhaps a bigger deal, PayPal, since it's an interactive computer service used to fund the creation of information (among other things). In fact, I think that's an even bigger deal, because it's not necessarily traditional platforms banning certain people that causes them to be denied a platform these days, it's the inability of them to get funding in a way that isn't "send cash to this PO Box".
  - judge2020 6y ago
    > As long as CloudFlare is fine with just taking money and serving content, no matter whose it is, they have the legal immunity as intended. As soon as they decide (on a whim) to deny service based on content, as they did a while back, that legal immunity vanishes. It would be catastrophic to their business to make that decision (especially considering everything else CloudFlare hosts), and that's the point. Except that they already do moderate based on content (malware, CP, etc) and don't have this immunity. The only reason they haven't been sued is because no lawyer or legal team is going to take on 8chan or random malware websites, and state-level DOJs don't have bad actors knocking on their door with the public's support behind them.
WiseWeasel 6y ago
Except Apple doesn’t encrypt iCloud uploaded content with client-side-stored encryption keys. It has been and will continue to be subpeonable. Section 230 concerns internet services, not all technology.
ineedasername 6y ago
The question is where do you draw the line. Apple consciously decides not to collect or track certain things about users. Yet that data could also reveal illicit activity, which means Apple is knowingly turning a blind eye to illicit activity. Further, any data about users could potentially uncover illicit activity, meaning a provider could essentially be required to track everything possible in order to avoid ignoring potential illicit content.