4 ms·

Rather than calling for backdoors, or secret rooms, this law explicitly prevents civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution for companies that refuse to install bac

Rather than calling for backdoors, or secret rooms, this law explicitly prevents civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution for companies that refuse to install backdoors or use end to end encryption that they cannot crack. I'm not really sure what the EFF is unhappy with about this act, since their complaints don't seem to be reflected in the text. From the act: 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.”.

Mathnerd314 6y ago
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... > Sen. Leahy’s amendment prohibits holding companies liable because they use “end-to-end encryption, device encryption, or other encryption services.” But the bill still encourages state lawmakers to look for loopholes to undermine end-to-end encryption, such as demanding that messages be scanned on a local device, before they get encrypted and sent along to their recipient.
- danielvf 6y ago
  How does the bill encourage that? Unless I'm really missing something, the language in the new child pornography section is the same as the current language in section 230e covering sex trafficking. That existing sex trafficking clause hasn't done any of the things that the EFF says this new one will do. The original Earn It Act was bad. But that bad stuff has been massively ripped out. Plus real protections for privacy added in. It's not the same as it was - look up the text and compare what's been struck through with what is left. I think in the current form it's a definite win for privacy and common sense.

Mathnerd314 6y ago

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... > Sen. Leahy’s amendment prohibits holding companies liable because they use “end-to-end encryption, device encryption, or other encryption services.” But the bill still encourages state lawmakers to look for loopholes to undermine end-to-end encryption, such as demanding that messages be scanned on a local device, before they get encrypted and sent along to their recipient.

danielvf 6y ago
How does the bill encourage that? Unless I'm really missing something, the language in the new child pornography section is the same as the current language in section 230e covering sex trafficking. That existing sex trafficking clause hasn't done any of the things that the EFF says this new one will do. The original Earn It Act was bad. But that bad stuff has been massively ripped out. Plus real protections for privacy added in. It's not the same as it was - look up the text and compare what's been struck through with what is left. I think in the current form it's a definite win for privacy and common sense.