6 ms·

> The EARN IT Act cynically uses crimes against children as an excuse to hand control of online privacy and speech over to state legislatures I like the idea o

> The EARN IT Act cynically uses crimes against children as an excuse to hand control of online privacy and speech over to state legislatures I like the idea of federal legislature ceding power to state legislatures. Additionally, it looks like encryption is offered more protections in this bill, Considering federal laws preempt state, especially with regard to telecommunications, I do not see what the risks are with passing this(regarding encryption). The bill ammends Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934. > 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.”. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dmos62 6y ago
I won't challenge the bill directly, but I'll point out that putting "crimes against children" front and center smells of misdirection, so it begs the question of what's really the bill's goal (though that could be just bad campaigning). Also, Edward Snowden spoke out against this bill. That's hearsay, but personally I've a fair amount of trust in his assessments.
- ghastmaster 6y ago
  The meat of the bill is that it establishes a commission (yes yet another, unpaid though!) that will establish and forward best practices to AG Barr concerning child sexual exploitation online. It is possible that one of the recommendations might be establishing a backdoor. In the future that recommendation would then be used to argue for legislation. Snowden is great, but do your own research. Edit: I usually trust Snowden as well. I could be missing something in this bill. EFF did not provide specifics. Hopefully someone here can.
  - dmos62 6y ago
    I prefered the context given on this petition page: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-let-congress-kill-encryption/ https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-let-congress-kill-e... > Just a few months ago, Senator Lindsey Graham (R–SC) delivered an ominous threat to Apple, Facebook, and any other tech company that might refuse to kill encryption programs that prevent malicious hackers, law enforcement officers, and others from accessing our private communications systems: "You're going to find a way to do this or we're going to do it for you." > Graham has authored the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2019 — or EARN IT Act [...]
    - ghastmaster 6y ago
      > You see, the EARN IT Act grants the Attorney General broad authority to force tech companies to do whatever he wants I looked and could not find this. That article did not offer any specifics either.
      - ptyyy 6y ago
        https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-ban-end-end-encryption-without-actually-banning-it https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-b... Scroll to summary, specifically "Section 230 immunity for CSAM can be earned via 1 of 2 “safe harbors”."
        6y ago
ffwd 6y ago
I don't think I've been paying enough attention but how does this work? The FBI, Police, and some congress members afaik have been talking about the going dark problem for years and now suddenly they pass a bill that explicitly protects companies from liability if they implement end to end encryption etc? Huh?! And why is EFF so wrong about this if that is correct? Maybe it has something to do with "Notwithstanding paragraph (6)"
- ghastmaster 6y ago
  Notwithstanding means in spite of paragraph 6. So 7(see above) preempts 6(see below). “(6) NO EFFECT ON CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION LAW.—Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit— “(A) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of that title; “(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law regarding the advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of child sexual abuse material, as defined in section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code; or “(C) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law regarding the advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of child sexual abuse material, as defined in section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code.
  - brushfoot 6y ago
    So what's the reason for the EFF's warning?
    - ghastmaster 6y ago
      Sadly, they did not point to any specific parts of the bill that would support their claims.
      - Nasrudith 6y ago
Dirlewanger 6y ago
>I like the idea of federal legislature ceding power to state legislatures. I don't, because I'm sure most state legislatures are even less informed on the importance of online encryption than Congress is. Doubly so if you live in a red state.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Handing national interstate matters over to states has proven to always be a terrible idea as it leads to a selective representation as they rule over far more than can vote for them. Doing so for the internet is doubly terrible given that location of all parties isn't reasonably known ahead of time nor usually relevant.
- ghastmaster 6y ago
  > they rule over far more than can vote for them I've never heard the commerce clause explained that way. Very cool.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    And very legal.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dmos62 6y ago

I won't challenge the bill directly, but I'll point out that putting "crimes against children" front and center smells of misdirection, so it begs the question of what's really the bill's goal (though that could be just bad campaigning). Also, Edward Snowden spoke out against this bill. That's hearsay, but personally I've a fair amount of trust in his assessments.

ghastmaster 6y ago
The meat of the bill is that it establishes a commission (yes yet another, unpaid though!) that will establish and forward best practices to AG Barr concerning child sexual exploitation online. It is possible that one of the recommendations might be establishing a backdoor. In the future that recommendation would then be used to argue for legislation. Snowden is great, but do your own research. Edit: I usually trust Snowden as well. I could be missing something in this bill. EFF did not provide specifics. Hopefully someone here can.
- dmos62 6y ago
  I prefered the context given on this petition page: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-let-congress-kill-encryption/ https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-let-congress-kill-e... > Just a few months ago, Senator Lindsey Graham (R–SC) delivered an ominous threat to Apple, Facebook, and any other tech company that might refuse to kill encryption programs that prevent malicious hackers, law enforcement officers, and others from accessing our private communications systems: "You're going to find a way to do this or we're going to do it for you." > Graham has authored the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2019 — or EARN IT Act [...]
  - ghastmaster 6y ago
    > You see, the EARN IT Act grants the Attorney General broad authority to force tech companies to do whatever he wants I looked and could not find this. That article did not offer any specifics either.
    - ptyyy 6y ago
      https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-ban-end-end-encryption-without-actually-banning-it https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-b... Scroll to summary, specifically "Section 230 immunity for CSAM can be earned via 1 of 2 “safe harbors”."
      - 6y ago

ffwd 6y ago

I don't think I've been paying enough attention but how does this work? The FBI, Police, and some congress members afaik have been talking about the going dark problem for years and now suddenly they pass a bill that explicitly protects companies from liability if they implement end to end encryption etc? Huh?! And why is EFF so wrong about this if that is correct? Maybe it has something to do with "Notwithstanding paragraph (6)"

ghastmaster 6y ago
Notwithstanding means in spite of paragraph 6. So 7(see above) preempts 6(see below). “(6) NO EFFECT ON CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION LAW.—Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit— “(A) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of that title; “(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law regarding the advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of child sexual abuse material, as defined in section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code; or “(C) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law regarding the advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of child sexual abuse material, as defined in section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code.
- brushfoot 6y ago
  So what's the reason for the EFF's warning?
  - ghastmaster 6y ago
    Sadly, they did not point to any specific parts of the bill that would support their claims.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago

Dirlewanger 6y ago

>I like the idea of federal legislature ceding power to state legislatures. I don't, because I'm sure most state legislatures are even less informed on the importance of online encryption than Congress is. Doubly so if you live in a red state.

Nasrudith 6y ago

Handing national interstate matters over to states has proven to always be a terrible idea as it leads to a selective representation as they rule over far more than can vote for them. Doing so for the internet is doubly terrible given that location of all parties isn't reasonably known ahead of time nor usually relevant.

ghastmaster 6y ago
> they rule over far more than can vote for them I've never heard the commerce clause explained that way. Very cool.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  And very legal.