70 ms·
The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos
- sdfjkl 3y agoPrivacy is a human right, LEARN IT.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoThey keep trying to get rid of privacy.
- ethbr0 3y agoPiracy and privacy are so difficult to distinguish. So few letters. Better to just get rid of both.
- rahidz 3y agoOur privacy. Which billionaire travels to which island while abusing which child, financed by what money, will remain happily hidden away.
- trackflak 3y agoThere is a Bible verse that says every deed done in darkness shall be named in the light. At times like these, I wish the deity who inspired it was a little more proactive.
- salemh 3y ago[dead]
- throwaway5959 3y agoMaybe part of the problem is that people are waiting for some fictional entity to solve their problems.
- brobinson 3y ago"We can't expect God to do all the work."
- yamazakiwi 3y agoThat is unfortunate
- brobinson 3y ago"The time for talk has passed. The Lord's work must be done."
- gregw2 3y agoAt times like these, I'd imagine that deity wishes we were more proactive too... https://www.openbible.info/topics/being_a_light https://www.openbible.info/topics/being_a_light (Verses the parent poster may be referring to: https://www.openbible.info/topics/all_shall_be_revealed https://www.openbible.info/topics/all_shall_be_revealed )
- alexfromapex 3y agoThey're trying to get rid of everything that isn't somehow serving corporations.
- notRobot 3y agoI'm so tired. I wish we didn't have to keep going through constant attacks on our privacy. I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point out of weariness, and I'm afraid when it comes to many people they're right.
- maerF0x0 3y agoPart of it is that we buy into it, literally. If you want to stop it, stop buying into companies that are compliant and sell you out in their technology choices.
- sgjohnson 3y agoAnd 3 steps after that you’ll have to go live off grid in a cabin in the woods. As romantic as it sounds, the one single purpose for for-profit companies is to produce shareholder value, and very few of them see shareholder value in keeping a legal department specifically designed for fighting constant and endless attacks on our privacy. Much more profitable to do anything else instead.
- colinsane 3y agoborn too late for homesteading to be a skill exercised and shared by a meaningful portion of society; born too early for homesteading to be made accessible via better technology. but a hundred years from now i do think “have to go live in a cabin in the woods” will be more like “get to”. because if that was something everyone could easily manage, i have no doubt i’d find myself in some cabin-in-the-woods community full of all the other wackos like me.
- sgjohnson 3y agoIt is highly likely that it's still possible today. All you need is a bunch of other wackos, like you say. Alone? No chance whatsoever. Bundy standoff worked, after all. Of course it has the prerequisite of being willing to die for the cause, which I doubt many people have, aside from the very select few for whom the most important mission in life is to live free. Me? I thoroughly admire such "wackos", but I enjoy the finer things in life way too much for this to be a feasible option for me.
- vrglvrglvrgl 3y ago[dead]
- maerF0x0 3y agoA reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog/nsa-staff-used-spy-tools-on-spouses-ex-lovers-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-camera-footage-without-a-warrant/ https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-searches-draw-call-for-supreme-court-action/ https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-searches-dr...
- metamate419 3y ago[dead]
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoPeople abuse their power, but that wouldn't matter if you really had nothing to hide. But everybody has something to hide. Your social security number? Your bank account number? Your debit card PIN? Yeah, pretty sure you have something to hide.
- isk517 3y agoThe other issue is just because something doesn't need to be hidden today doesn't mean a change in the political/social winds could happen that requires you to hide it tomorrow.
- x86x87 3y agoNo. Sorry. This is invalid. It would be pretty bad if we declare some shit illegal and retroactively apply the "law". You will be charged for shit that everyone did and is perfectly fine. For example: How would you like to go to jail for not being a Christian? This will be weaponized. This is what fascism looks like.
- lockhouse 3y ago
- jimbob45 3y agoMr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAWLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. HASSAN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. WARNER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. KENNEDY Article understated things by calling it a "group" of senators. That's a lot of senators already willing to get this thing off the ground.
- a_e_k 3y agoThat's 20. 1/5 of all senators.
- LocalH 3y agoI'm tired of these cutesy backronyms that they try to come up with to influence the public's perception of a law. "EARN IT"? What the fuck? It should be outright illegal to pass laws whose acronyms spell words. But, of course, that'll never happen, because who would willingly give up such a juicy tool for gaming the system?
- sgjohnson 3y agoRemember the PATRIOT Act?
- LocalH 3y agoYep. Or the "USA PATRIOT" Act, as it's full name spells. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". But by calling it "patriot", it implies that you're not a patriot if you don't support it. Never mind that modern American "patriotism" isn't anything of the sort, but is much closer to nationalism.
- anigbrowl 3y agoIt's blatant propaganda, but Americans continue to lie to themselves that they live in the freest country in the world.
- somenameforme 3y agoI think the overwhelming majority of people are realizing a lot of the rhetoric is just cynical lies at this point. Consider the recent report [1] that only 25% of people don't think the media is deliberately misleading them - 50% think they are, 25% are undecided. The implications of that cannot be overstated, especially as the media has increasingly become little more than a proxy for the official position of the day. [1] - https://fortune.com/2023/02/15/trust-in-media-low-misinform-mislead-biased-republicans-democrats-poll-gallup/ https://fortune.com/2023/02/15/trust-in-media-low-misinform-...
- hellojesus 3y ago
- wudangmonk 3y agoThey need to pass a 'public official' bill that ties any and all public official records to whatever is expected of the general population, no exceptions. This is the only true way to stop these type of bills.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoNot just public records. Public officials should be on Medicare. Their retirement should be Social Security. Their staff should be subject to the same employment rules that apply to everyone else. And so on.
- hellojesus 3y agoBut Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.
- myhf 3y agoYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- hellojesus 3y agoCheck Article 1 Section 8 and let me know where it says Congress has the power to create social welfare programs.
- myhf 3y agoIn the first sentence.
- vegetablepotpie 3y ago4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAWLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. HASSAN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. WARNER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. KENNEDY.
- dehrmann 3y ago> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
- tomschlick 3y agoWhy do Californians keep re-electing her?
- throwaway5959 3y agoWhy do Kentuckians keep re-electing Mitch McConnell?
- cuttysnark 3y agoA senator whose name isn't on this list—what's your point?
- jdminhbg 3y agoBecause he represents their views and is an extremely powerful senator besides?
- adamsb6 3y agoNaturally this bill designed to strip our privacy is named after the song from Fifty Shades of Grey.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y agoHere’s the link to send an email to your local representative. It’s a pre-filled form and takes less than 60 seconds to complete: https://act.eff.org/action/the-earn-it-act-is-back-seeking-to-scan-us-all/ https://act.eff.org/action/the-earn-it-act-is-back-seeking-t...
- pksebben 3y agoeveryone with an opinion in this thread ought to do this. It really doesn't take any time at all.
- colinsane 3y agosome countries have a public policy of “don’t negotiate with terrorists”. it’s so tempting for me to adopt the same policy in my own life. if a burglar showed up at my door demanding entry, i wouldn’t debate them about why it’s morally preferable that they don’t enter against my will. but when it’s some politician demanding entry, suddenly everyone thinks i ought to engage in that debate. no. better to dispel the myth: those who rule without consent are illegitimate rulers. the problem isn’t us failing to persuade such rulers. it’s us failing to reject such rulers.
- hackermatic 3y agoThe problem is that this line of thinking usually turns into just doing nothing and letting them roll over us anyway because they've taken our silence as consent.
- colinsane 3y agogenerally speaking, rulers don't care about your consent. they might care about the second and third order effects of consent, but to say they'll interpret silence as consent is to suggest that their knowledge of your consent is a primary driver of their actions -- and that's just not the case. but no, i'm not saying you should let yourself be steamrolled. anyone in this thread has the knowledge to work around this particular adversarial legislation; to build systems where bad actors have less power over you. spin up a Matrix server. bridge it to Signal or Telegram or wherever else you need to stay in contact with your less nerdy friends. then when bad people try to do bad things to the people around you, point them to that escape hatch you've already prepared.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- noelsusman 3y agoI find myself consistently disappointed when reading blog posts like this. I generally agree with the principles that the EFF advocates for, but it's hard to see this post as anything other than rage-bait. I can't trust it to be an accurate source of information on what this bill actually does. For example, I've repeatedly seen claims that this bill would effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption, but the bill explicitly protects companies that offer encryption from liability. >None of the following actions or circumstances shall serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider of an interactive computer service for a claim or charge described in that paragraph: >(i) The provider utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services. >(ii) The provider does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication. >(iii) The provider 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" When I look to the EFF for an explanation about why this language isn't sufficient, I get this: >The bill clearly leaves room to impose forms of "client-side scanning" Going back to the bill, the phrase "client-side scanning" doesn't appear anywhere in the text despite the EFF implying that they're quoting from the bill. If they're not quoting from the bill then what exactly are they quoting from? This is the kind of thing that makes me unable to trust them to be accurate, which makes posts like this effectively useless to me since I feel the need to independently verify all of their claims.
- borski 3y agoClient side scanning came out of the discussion around this bill the last time it was proposed. That it isn’t in this bill doesn’t mean it isn’t in politicians’ heads, and if this gets passed there is then significant precedent for extending it, as a small extension doesn’t seem as big as a full-scale government invasion of citizens’ privacy (i.e. this bill).
- noelsusman 3y agoI don't believe the transition from "set up a commission to recommend best practices" to "mandate regular scans of everyone's phones and report the results to law enforcement" would be viewed as a small extension.
- throwaway5959 3y agoThey only have to pass it once but we have to fight it forever. This will be like the Patriot Act, it’ll never go away.
- barbariangrunge 3y agoGentle reminder: you can donate to the EFF to help them fight bills like this!
- EGreg 3y agoAnd this time they’ll probably get it passed. Seeing as what they have already done in Europe and California and Utah and… There is something We the People can do, as an industry, it is described at the bottom of this link. First it describes the massive extent of the problem, then links to the solution: https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-encryption/214 https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en... If you are thinking “why should I bother clicking on that random link?” It starts out by linking to all the stuff the US government has already done, including defeating the EFF’s challenges recently in court — that’s defeating the same guys who published this new piece.
- anigbrowl 3y agoAs I've said before, complaining about privacy will only take you so far because the issues are too abstract for many people. While right-wing attacks on abortion and contraception may seem irrelevant to tech issues, they also attack the legal basis for privacy, which is not explicitly written into the US constitution. It'd be wise to focus a little less on individual bills and a little more on the broader strategic picture. That should include a privacy-friendly counter-proposal for dealing with the trade in CSAM, which is a real problem no matter how much the tech community tries to wish it away by saying 'it's already illegal'. It's disingenuous to look at one issue and say 'scope creep, this will threaten our freedoms' while looking at another issue and saying 'we already passed a law, therefore the problem doesn't exist'.
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y agoBy accepting their framing of "CSAM vs personal privacy" as the moral conundrum, you have already lost. You will be forced to compromise over and over, trading a little liberty for a little security, "for the children." As if the "intelligence community" that ran Jeffrey Epstein is going to use their shiny new surveillance powers to eradicate pedophilia.
- anigbrowl 3y agoThat's wrong. CSAM is a problem, the tech industry has failed to get to grips with how easily it facilitates CSAM sharing (not dissimilar to piracy, though I support the latter), and until the tech industry can point to a credible CSAM mitigation policy proposal it will keep looping back to the CSAM-v-privacy framing. Skip the rhetorical flourishes and come up with a proposal that addresses the issue. If you refuse to do so, then you can't complain about privacy-eradicating opponents offering their mediocre or bad policies. Refusing to acknowledge an issue exists is an automatic loser.
- youarenutz 3y ago[dead]
- 3y ago
- eagleinparadise 3y agoSurely someone here will be encouraged to run for office
- rolph 3y agothis has been done before: https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/salem-witch-trials https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/salem-witch-...
- the88doctor 3y agoThat's a scarily good comparison. Children need to be protected, but it feels like there is a steady erosion of basic rights to privacy, free speech, free expression, and free choice that are being justified with "whatever it takes to save a child".
- gavinhoward 3y agoHere is a link to send to politicians: https://everyoneneedsencryption.gavinhoward.com/ https://everyoneneedsencryption.gavinhoward.com/ . Feedback welcome. I want it as short and as punchy as possible.
- throwawayzzo 3y ago[flagged]
- user3939382 3y agoUnless and until the security state and neocon/neolib corporatist* power complex is ripped out of our government this will never stop and the People will lose this war. It's much harder to rescind a law than pass it, which means they only have to win once and we have to win every time. We are doomed by this asymmetry.
- anaganisk 3y agoI found the comments under the TikTok ban thread the other day and asked, Why are you so concerned about China, which can do nothing, while other apps collect the data in the country you are in has the actual power to jail you because, you support abortion or LGBTQ. The mental gymnastics were, US has a due process of law and China is an authoritarian dictatorship, while they still live in the US and China can't extradite them. People constantly fail to realize, the views change, what's legal today could be illegal tomorrow, and you will absolutely be profiled as a risk. Even if they can't prove you are guilty, the absolute nightmare of going through the due process of law and being tagged as a risk is something to think about and take it seriously. The concern must not be if the app is based on what country, it must be why does this app want to know so much about me, or why does the govt need to know my every opinion. US trusted Dick Cheney's words and we all know what happened.
- pfoof 3y agoIf so, then every member of parliament, senator, judge, minister and other public officers should upload all their data and conversations for the public to see and regularly update it. After all it's for the "good of the society" right?
- kylehotchkiss 3y ago> The bill also makes specific allowances to allow the use of encryption to constitute evidence in court against service providers. So if you enable iCloud advanced protection, that is "evidence". We really really need a younger congress.
- lysozyme 3y agoI’m reminded by a speech by Frederick Douglass [1] that >This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. (Emphasis mine) 1. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress/ https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-fred...
- devindotcom 3y agoDouglass was such a mind. I need to actually read through his various memoirs and essays/correspondence.
- GalenErso 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aendruk 3y agoYou could start with the big red call to action in TFA.
- motohagiography 3y agoNo, you're just part of the third of people that one third can depend on to do nothing while they try to destroy the reamining third. Discouraging others is just a bonus.
- GalenErso 3y agoI'll admit I would rather this bill doesn't pass but don't care if it does to do anything about it.
- celtoid 3y agoMarcus Raskin's 1976 paper "Democracy Versus the National Security State" [0] is a good backgrounder on how we've gotten to this state of affairs. If politicians want to continue with their careers in Congress, they'll either serve the national security state or have to pretend to their constituents that it doesn't exist. "The national security state emerges from war, from fear of revolution and change, from the economic instability of capitalism, and from nuclear weapons and military technology.It has been the actualizing mechanism of ruling elites to implement their imperial schemes and misplaced ideals. In practical terms its emergence is linked to the rise of a bureaucracy that administered things and people in interchangeable fashion without concern for ends or assumptions. This state formation matured during a period in which the office of the President be- came supremely powerful as a broker and legitimating instrument of national security activity." "...The society is at a turning point. And in this regard so is the legal profession. Either we will surrender representative democracy, embracing instead different forms of corporate fascism and bureaucratic control (military, police, and social) which cannot be halted through citizen action and democratic pro- cesses, or we (including the legal profession) will begin the difficult task of dismantling the national security apparatus. It does not seem likely to me that those who struggled in the sixties to develop a new meaning of democracy will settle for bureaucratic or corporate fascism. And those who are neutral on the question will be less likely to acquiesce in fascist or bonapartist deformations once it is clear that they are inefficient, and that they provide only insecurity, unemployment, imperial wars, a deepening arms race, and a pro- cess of repressive exclusion which reduces politics to an empty game." [0] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol40/iss3/7/ https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol40/iss3/7/ Plain text at: https://archive.org/stream/democracy-versus-the-national-security-state/Democracy%20Versus%20the%20National%20Security%20State%281%29_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/democracy-versus-the-national-sec...
- Madmallard 3y agoHow does this stuff keep happening? Like no one wants it in the public why is it still coming up?
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoI'm in the public and I want this bill. My senator is one of the sponsors and I'm happy to see it. I think a large portion of society is now following enough echo chambers that they believe that nobody opposes their position, when usually... it's a pretty big chunk of society, actually, that they just never interact with or talk to.
- youarenutz 3y ago[dead]
- galoisscobi 3y agoI really appreciate that EFF has a convenient way to reach out to reps. If you’re a US citizen and reading this thread, I highly recommend using EFF’s tool to write to your reps. They have a pre written message and it takes 30 seconds to send it out.
- vlovich123 3y agoRe “If you have nothing to hide” arguments. Pointing out abuses is one thing. I say we go the other way. All travel by government employees/officials is available to the public (can be historical to avoid security issues). Complete financial transparency by all government officials/senior staff and their family members enforced at the bank level - you must list all your accounts, a cumulative amount of assets, list of specific assets >10k in value. The financial institution is responsible for providing that directly to the IRS which then removed account numbers, institution names, round values to the nearest N to avoid identity theft, etc. The entire political apparatus in the US seems to shy away from any real transparency yet want to foist it on everyone else not in power. That’s not really living your values.
- noisy_boy 3y agoMake them share their all their phone communications; that's what this bill amounts to anyway.
- motohagiography 3y agoIf I were American, I might respond to their, "Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies" Act, with the "Mitigating Overreach Limiting Obstruction Nullifying Lamentability And Benefiting Everyone" Act. If by EARN IT, they mean Americans should earn their freedom - which this government is using its own crimes[1] as a pretext for taking from them - that seems really just unwise. [1] EDKH
- sroussey 3y agoSoon they will ask to scan your car computer so they can ticket you for speeding.
- govolckurself 3y ago[dead]
- bippihippi1 3y agowhat can we do? this is already happening in a lot of cases, we need to make sure this legal grey zone is closed and ruled in favor of privacy. as government powers are derived from the people, and I don't have any right to walk into your house and ask for your mail, the government has no right to invade our privacy. there are better ways to keep us safe. lots of private software does this already and has lots of problems. I see no reason to assume the government would be any better. I could maybe get behind less privacy for government programs interfacing with the American public and for corporations
- abvdasker 3y agoTo me what's so maddening about these attacks on Internet privacy is that they're extremely unpopular with actual voters across the political spectrum (it's just that awareness of these measures is very low). No politician would ever dare to campaign on a policy like this because nobody wants it. These persistent attempts to pass anti-privacy measures really highlight the corruption of American "democracy" given that there is zero popular mandate to do this but politicians keep trying anyway.
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoThis is false. There's significant support across the political spectrum for curtailing Section 230, which is why EARN IT has bipartisan cosponsors. Big tech companies, employees of said companies, and their lobbyists and marketing angles, of course, are loudly against it, which is why you will see less support for it here on HN.
- Madmallard 3y agoThe fundamental instinctive understanding that everyone has socially as to why gossip is bad is why privacy is important.
- anticensor 3y agoFTFY: The fundamental instinctive understanding that everyone has socially as to why certain types of gossip are bad is why privacy on those respects is important.
- riazrizvi 3y agoI think it is far more likely that the main impetus for this comes from those who can make the most money from it. Corporations and organizations who seek economic and political intelligence. Identifying employees who are considering other employment options, identifying employees who are considering joining unions, identifying employees political leaning, so that undesirables can be fired upfront and black balled.
- mrawesome8 3y agoThe EARN IT Act threatens the privacy of all internet users by allowing for suspicionless scans of online messages, photos, and hosted files. This law creates an unelected government commission stacked with law enforcement personnel that can dictate "best practices" for internet websites and apps. The EARN IT Act removes legal protections for users and website owners and allows state legislatures to encourage civil lawsuits and prosecutions against those who don’t follow the government’s “best practices.” Websites and apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect user privacy will be pressured to remove or compromise the security of their services or face prosecutions and lawsuits. This law falsely assumes that all internet users should be under suspicion for child abuse, treating us all like we're in a permanent criminal lineup. The available evidence shows that scanning software designed to detect Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) is far from perfect and often results in false accusations. The EARN IT Act threatens to export these false accusations to vulnerable communities around the world, where they can be wielded by police forces with even less accountability than those in the United States. The EARN IT Act leaves room for client-side scanning, violating user privacy by sending data to law enforcement straight from user devices. Everyone has a right to privacy, even if they have nothing to hide. Just like we close the door when we use the bathroom, we should be able to keep our online conversations and information private. It is a fundamental right that allows individuals to have control over their personal information and to be free from unwarranted surveillance. Without privacy, people can be vulnerable to all sorts of abuse, including identity theft, stalking, and harassment. The act then removes nearly 30-year-old legal protections for users and website owners. If EARN IT passes, we’re likely to see state lawmakers step in and mandate scanning of messages and other files. The proposed law has been defeated twice before but needs digital rights supporters to speak up and stop it from passing again. We need to support a free, secure, and private internet.
- wesleyd 3y agoThose who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. But what sort of sad bastard has nothing to hide?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- winrid 3y agoHere's the bill on govscent (with topics extracted by openai, UI is very much still early days...) https://govscent.org/bill/USA/118s686is https://govscent.org/bill/USA/118s686is We also have the topics and summaries by section, but I have yet to build the UI for it.
- desertraven 3y agoThe increasing rate of technological progress worries me sometimes. One upside is the hope that malicious policy just won't be able to keep up with the rate of change. It seems futile to fight these kinds of things, especially since if something isn't legal, it'll likely get done via some shady method (eg. mass surveillance). I wonder what an emerging information system would look like where these kinds of policies just wouldn't be relevant. P2P? Turning away from online tech in general? When the bully comes to the playground, it seems like a good idea to just go play elsewhere.
- StanislavPetrov 3y agoYet another reminder that if you are a US citizen, your safety and your freedom are far more threatened by those in DC than anyone in a foreign country.
- mrcode007 3y agoWhenever a bill appears, disappears and reappears there’s a big chance it is a case of a “milker bill” or a “toll booth bill”. Basically go after an industry with money and propose some really inconvenient thing for them and say it will go away if you “donate to my campaign” usually through “lobbying efforts” Big examples in the past were SOPA act for example https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/politicians-extortion-racket.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/politicians-extor... EDIT: it seems to happen at all levels https://abc11.com/amp/politics-durham-city-council-extortion-real-estate-developer/13003620/ https://abc11.com/amp/politics-durham-city-council-extortion... https://abc30.com/amp/nelson-esparza-charged-extortion-city-council-president/12059065/ https://abc30.com/amp/nelson-esparza-charged-extortion-city-...
- deafpolygon 3y agoSome days, I would like a law that applies to digital things the same thing we already have protected by the constitution; the Fourth Amendment should apply to our digital stores but it doesn't. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I personally believe "papers, and effects" apply to digital things.
- francasso 3y agoIsn't there a way to permanently stop lawmakers from proposing to take away freedoms and rights using terrorism or child abuse as excuses? We can't keep fighting this kind of bullshit every few years.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoWill these people ever stop?
- atemerev 3y agoBecause most “democratic” countries are not really democratic. Elected representatives can and will act against the interests of the public they represent. While here in Switzerland we have direct democracy, where such decisions have to be confirmed by national referendums (we have several each year), and most certainly this one would not be approved.
- panny 3y agoI'm willing to wager that client side scanning violates the third amendment of the us constitution.
- irrational 3y agoThey are going to keep trying until it passes, aren’t they.
- Etrnl_President 3y agoUnpopular legal factoid: The right to privacy was overturned with Roe vs. Wade.
- samwyse 3y agoJust an reminder: ChatGPT does a great job of rephrasing things to make them unique.
- IYasha 3y agoAs a non-american (and from far-far-away) I still sympathise with people who stand against it. Because it's fairly clear to me: if it starts there, it spreads everywhere. That's more of a WEF thing.