15 ms·
EARN IT Act undermines the privacy, security, and safety of law-abiding users
- mypgovroom 4y agoCan Congress pass a law outlawing giving bills cute names that are completely irrelevant to the intent of the law? Once they get that accomplished they can work on something else
- Maxburn 4y agoCan we make congressmen actually read the bills they vote on?
- lockhouse 4y agoYes, a bill should have to be read out loud in its entirety by its sponsor in public before any voting can occur.
- LastTrain 4y agoNow /that’s/ some bureaucracy
- edgyquant 4y agoIt would result in them being shorter
- malfist 4y agoIs shorter better?
- airstrike 4y agoPerfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
- malfist 4y agoThat doesn't mean shorter is always better. When you take away necessary detail to make things shorter, you wind up with a shorter, less perfect law. For instance, if the law was "No driving over 70mph on I-75", shortening the law to "No driving" isn't an improvement. And even if we maintain the detail and shorten to "No 70+mph driving @ I-75" it doesn't improve things. Concise is good. shortness for shortness sake is not. We don't need to be playing code golf with laws.
- snvzz 4y agoSeen this quote recently, in some book about RISC-V.
- lockhouse 4y agoShorter makes it harder to stuff it full of pork.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LastTrain 4y agoIt would result in a pointless formal exercise simply designed to make things more difficult without any tangible benefit. Bureaucracy.
- ursuscamp 4y agoOn the floor, with a majority present.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoNothing you do can keep the majority awake. Budget bills in particular can get really tedious. And any bill that, say, strikes or adds a word to already extant law, would require reading the entirety of the law so changed.
- lockhouse 4y agoI don’t care if they stay awake, I want to end omnibus Bible sized bills full of pork and erosions of our rights being put in bills that would otherwise be in the interests of the people. Forcing them the discomfort of having to read it out loud all by themselves should help greatly with that. I’m looking at you former speaker of the house that said we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoThis will incentive Congress to delegate more than they do now. Instead of line items for each major expense in a budget bill, they'll just assign X billions of dollars to Y agency to parcel out as the agency director wishes.
- lockhouse 4y agoYes and that will reduce pork by no longer mandating the Army to buy a specific number of tanks that are built in an important Congressman’s district when they really need money to fix a barracks.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoYou'd hope so, but this will probably be covered by only appointing people willing to delve out pork as directors of the agencies.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoSelf-filibuster?
- kmeisthax 4y agoWhile we're at it, every Git pull request should have to be read out in full. No `git diff` - that's just as bad as what Congress does. Read every source file, even the ones that didn't changed, just to be sure. /s
- BeFlatXIII 4y agoThe self-filibuster. I fully support it.
- samstave 4y agoDon't allow them to vote on anything they cant pass a basic comprehension test on.
- ejb999 4y agoWe should have the same requirement for people voting in elections.
- colejohnson66 4y agoWe tried that a century ago, but it was just racism in disguise. Why would we assume any questionnaire people must take today won't be abused for other agendas?
- vuln 4y ago> Why would we assume any questionnaire people must take today won't be abused for other agendas? Same with voter ID. It’s touted as “racist” although other poorer countries easily handle the issue of voter ID. It’s almost as if one political party amasses power by continually brow beating their constituents into a victim mentality.
- ejb999 4y agoI think the new rule is you need to pass it first, and then find out what is in it.
- briantakita 4y ago> Can Congress pass a law outlawing giving bills cute names that are completely irrelevant to the intent of the law? Once they get that accomplished they can work on something else It's sometimes helpful to look at the name of the bill & assume that the bill will achieve the exact opposite. > Can we make congressmen actually read the bills they vote on? Most Congress members vote based on spheres of influence, not spheres of interest. The lobbyists that fund the politician's campaign tells the politician how to vote & the consequences of voting against the lobbyist's wishes.
- Maxburn 4y agoSort of a Betteridge's law of headlines situation.
- BeFlatXIII 4y agoOr at least require a full verbal reading of the bill before voting? Stop the 4000-page moster bills with a self-filibuster.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pdntspa 4y agoIt's like those people who have to give every security vulnerability some stupid cute name.
- tvanantwerp 4y agoBills should only have numbers, never names. Cattle, not pets.
- swapfile 4y agoYou gotta love it when a site called "techfreedom" black holes Tor exit node IPs. I can only access this site through web proxies.
- LinuxBender 4y agoThat is ironic. Here [1] is an alternate link. [1] - https://archive.is/20230504130057/https://techfreedom.org/earn-it-act-remains-a-threat-to-liberty-security-safety-of-children/ https://archive.is/20230504130057/https://techfreedom.org/ea...
- btdmaster 4y agoarchive.is kind of has the same issue, so maybe the Web Archive is better. [2] [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230504121420if_/https://techfreedom.org/earn-it-act-remains-a-threat-to-liberty-security-safety-of-children/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230504121420if_/https://techfr...
- LinuxBender 4y agoAre they also blocking Tor?
- btdmaster 4y agoThey request a (JavaScript) captcha completion every time I've checked.
- LinuxBender 4y agoOdd. I have never enabled Javascript for archive.is, especially since with it enabled they have some resource link to mail.ru and since I block .ru on my DNS it times out. The lack of requiring Javascript is the reason I use that site. I have both uBlock and NoScript blocking javascript.
- stasmo 4y ago
- endisneigh 4y agoFolks wanted regulation, this is the regulation. Turns out leaving a bunch of oldies to regulate a highly dynamic industry isn’t going to go well. Earn it has bipartisan support. Its passing is inevitable sadly. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3538/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/353...
- snvzz 4y ago>Its passing is inevitable sadly. That's a defeatist view. It is quite certainly not inevitable. It can be stopped through public outrage.
- throwwwaway69 4y agoThere’s been outrage on this for decades and it never goes away. In fact it’s worse than ever thanks to patriot act and similar
- ryandrake 4y agoThat's the big problem with legislation like this: They can just re-introduce it every year until it passes, and opponents have to keep fighting it every time. A bill's supporters only have to sneak it through once--its opponents have to defeat it every time.
- endisneigh 4y agoYes, but other than techies most people find it reasonable.
- account42 4y agoMost people have not read the bill nor thought about what it means. Maybe people react positively to leading questions about protecting childing and ensuring safety but that is a different matter entirely.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoJust being pragmatic and not trying to voice a side here; would it be possible to come up with our own bill that addresses CSAM in a way that is compatible with our general values in technology? This bill isn’t coming out of nowhere. Allegedly, CSAM is up 89% from pre-pandemic levels, which if true is fairly shocking and does deserve a response, perhaps in tech, of some kind. CSAM isn’t going away and every sane person hates it - so is the best strategy we can come up with, be to put our heads in the sand and say “but muh encryption!” whenever asked? I would argue, no. We need to seriously consider if it is possible to come with our own bill, addressing the CSAM issue, so that we get to set the policy and not a fed-up ignorant Congress. Trying to keep things the way they are, forever, I don’t think is going to be a winning strategy. Both parties are in favor - so either we can write it, or they can write it.
- JackFr 4y ago> would it be possible to come up with our own bill that addresses CSAM in a way that is compatible with our general values in technology Who is the in that 'our'? That's exactly what this bill is for specific values of our.
- photochemsyn 4y agoThe solution has been explained over and over, time and time again: federal prosecutors need to prioritize investigation of such crimes in a targeted manner. Note the government's record on doing their job on this issue is somewhat problematic: > "FBI opens settlement talks with gymnasts who survived abuse by Larry Nassar Updated July 28, 20224:27 PM ET (NPR)" I don't know why it needs to be said again and again that the existence of criminal behavior isn't an excuse for warrantless domestic mass surveillance, but apparently it does.
- snarf21 4y agoI agree and think that HUGE whistle blower awards including up to re-location as part of Witness Protection Program would help a lot. There are people in bad personal situations that feel "trapped" but have the knowledge that these crimes (and others like trafficking are happening).
- the88doctor 4y agoThe claim that EARN IT would make "prosecution of child sexual abuse crimes more difficult" is inaccurate. The bill only creates a voluntary set of guidelines for companies, not a mandatory set of guidelines. Companies would be motivated to adopt the voluntary guidelines in order to avoid a heap of legal liability, but this would only be a heap of liability by tech company standards and not by the standards of any other industry not protected by Section 230. In other words, the fourth amendment argument doesn't really hold water. The data collection practices would still only be private actions, not state actions. I'm not advocating for EARN IT. I still think the bill is terrible because it disincentivizes end-to-end encryption (or more specifically, it incentivizes bypassing it with client-side scanning). But the specific argument that it would make prosecuting child abuse more difficult doesn't hold water.
- Dalewyn 4y ago>Companies would be motivated to adopt the voluntary guidelines in order to avoid a heap of legal liability, but this would only be a heap of liability by tech company standards and not by the standards of any other industry not protected by Section 230. I think this really is the crux of the issue. Whatever our various opinions, we can all seemingly agree that Section 230 gives internet publishers far too much cake that they also eat. And because the cake keeps being given out and eaten with no damns given to more finer attempts at reconciliation, we're moving on to responding with sledgehammers like this one.
- throwawaaarrgh 4y agoI'm done with politics using children as pawns for their agendas, the way they (and private corporations) use pornography and other vices to push censorship and ban content that the moral minority disapprove of. From now on if you claim "it's to protect the children" I'm just going to vote against it on principle. Children deserve real protection, but they're but gonna get it as long as they are a valuable political tool.
- rideontime 4y ago[flagged]
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoYou live in a place that doesn't have initiative or referendum? And this poster can always just vote against legislators who have "protecting the children" as part of their platform.
- rideontime 4y agoYes, most US citizens don't have the opportunity to vote directly against policies like these. And which party is against this policy?
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoPresumably the party that prefers old-school Roman republics over old-school Greek democracies.
- 3pt14159 4y ago[flagged]
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago> How often do you see "Christians" hatefully use the F word referring to men who have sex with men? Plenty of times, unfortunately. You might not see it often— are you openly, publicly gay? Do you hold your boyfriend or husbands hand in public? Are you seen going to and leaving a queer bar on the regular? Have you tried to adopt a child with your same-sex significant other, or are seen in public or going to a public school with your adopted child? If you’re not the target of homophobia it makes sense to not experience very much of it.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoI think if we want to protect children, one of the biggest things we can do is to ban child marriage. Girls as young as 13 should not be getting married, especially since they are minors they can’t get divorced(!!!) it’s an ugly and disgusting practice and should be wiped off this country.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago[flagged]
- snvzz 4y agoExtend to adults while at it. Statistically, it destroys lives and makes people miserable. After it ends in divorce (which statistically is most of the time), there's all sorts of follow-up issues with splitting goods and the insanity that is alimony.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoIt could potentially be argued that the prevalence of divorce is what negatively affects the largest number of children. Non-fact-based opinion: Stable relationships create stable children, and stable children are less prone to predators.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoAs long as those stable relationships are healthy, and world-adaptive. Too many abusers have stable marriages. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpin_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpin_case
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoI would argue against demonizing divorce. Living with a couple who hates each other or where one is domestically abusing the other is a horrible state for children. Marriages aren’t stable inherently.
- 4y ago
- leke 4y agoI think I know how they are going to replace the labour shortage predicted in the near future.
- vuln 4y agoDo tell. I’m all ears.
- throwwwaway69 4y agoExpanded forced prison labor?
- _2uwr 4y ago[dead]
- throwwwaway69 4y agoGovernments should have to earn the right to invade everyone’s privacy and act in authoritarian ways. Give me a 30 year track record of outstanding governance with real, working checks and balances that have resulted in zero abuse or misuse.
- vaylian 4y agoMeanwhile, the EU tries to push similar nonsense: https://chatcontrol.eu https://chatcontrol.eu Let's think of the children for a moment! The children in the EU, GB and the USA will grow up under constant surveillance. So much growing up today happens in connection with digital communication. To invade children's privacy like this is just sick.
- erenyeager 4y agoInternet Pornography and access to communicating with adults online and sending pictures and meeting up has had a profoundly negative effect on some children and teens. I think that this space will eventually get regulated much better as people realize the negative externalities of an unregulated internet accessed by young minds. This isn’t even getting into social media, and also spread of attention problems and screens. But in a way, I sense most parents were not yet adjusted to the new reality of the internet in the last 2 decades, and we’re all playing catch up for regulation.