We should design cryptosystems that include functionality that support warrants as opposed to being antiencryption and removing encryption.
The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
61–70 of 520 posts
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#62It seems like this Stanford page has clearly taken a side on the issue. Does anyone have a link to a solid unbiased discussion of the pros and cons of this? It's got bipartisan support, so clearly there are legitimate arguments in favor of these changes, would be interested to hear what they are.
> It's got bipartisan support, so clearly there are legitimate arguments in favor of these changes I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. It doesn't seem appropriate to assume that politicians are acting in good faith dialectical fashion, based on literally every observation we've ever made of their actions vs their rhetoric.
Issues like this are difficult as there are conflicting needs and people wearing blinders on the issue. There’s really no correct answer, but there are at least 4-5 camps of true believers.
Recall the HN community going apeshit over Apple’s proposed methodology to address this issue. That solution was engineered to benefit Apple and was imperfect, but fundamentally addressed CSAM risk with a proven methodology and preserved strong crypto.
That visceral, apeshit reaction was incited by a poorly written EFF article that blurred the lines between a parental control and CSAM.
So yay, we won. Now broken encryption is back and may well pass, as both law and order moderates and batshit crazy conservatives can find common ground.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While this bill is strongly opposed by the Internet Society, ACLU, CDT, and EFF, It's worth noting that the companies destroying democracy that this bill regulates (Google, Facebook, etc.) are major donors to all of these organizations.
And Mozilla Corporation’s entire business model is built on Google’s financial support. Does that make Mozilla’s (or the ACLU etc.) work inherently suspect or anti-democratic?
Yes it does. One rotten apple spoils the bunch.
That's not to say guilt by association, but yes it is suspect.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These people seem incapable of understanding the existential threat to free society and democracy posed by limiting everyone's ability to communicate private thoughts. The existential threat this bill poses to free society and democracy is exactly why they're supporting it. It's not some accidental side effect. They're opposed to the existence of free society and democracy because it limits government power, which…
We had a free society and democracy before the internet.
You must not have been around when the government was pushing for backdoors on Telecom products in the 1990s. Before the internet was a thing for most people.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#65No post body was provided.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#66I feel like there's two big issues at war with this one.
1) The Web 2.0 war over how much legal liability internet platforms have to bear. This is the big one to me, ever since the DMCA this is the pivotal issues about the internet.
2) The ongoing war against E2E encryption. This is a nonissue, the attempts of the authorities to restrict digital encryption are pointless and futile.
I'm a big fan of reform in #1. The big internet platforms like Facebook absolutely need to face far more legal liability for their actions.
But conflating the thing into one big bill that pushes forward E2E encryption restrictions is one of the issues with democracy in America.
There is so much horse trading involved in Washington required to do anything, because of lobbyist vetos, the fact all these issues have to end up in an omnibus bill is ridiculous.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#67While this bill is strongly opposed by the Internet Society, ACLU, CDT, and EFF, the critiques I've read don't get much into the real "why" behind this legislation continuing to be pushed so forcefully. The pretext is, of course, "protect the children" and more generally law-and-order with a bonus side-helping of "stop those awful social media giants." While these justifications are (hopefully) obvious misdirection t…
> These people seem incapable of understanding the existential threat to free society and democracy posed by limiting everyone's ability to communicate private thoughts
Oh, they understand perfectly.
Power-hungry people love authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is opposed by democracy.
They are the threat.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#68No post body was provided.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#69No matter your opinion on the issue, the firearm lobby would probably serve as an effective model for fighting legislation like this on a long term basis.
It would require people willing to be single-issue voters, the way many are on abortion or firearms. Would anyone here switch party votes to a candidate who sided their way on tech privacy — even if they disagreed on other core principles like abortion, gun rights, religion in schools, etc? Maybe a few, but I'm not convinced many.
[deleted]
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#70Graham (R-SC) Blumenthal (D-CT)* Durbin (D-IL) Grassley (R-IA)* Feinstein (D-CA) Cornyn (R-TX) Whitehouse (D-RI) Hawley (R-MO) Hirono (D-HI) Kennedy (D-LA)* Casey (D-PA) Blackburn (R-TN) Masto (D-NV)* Collins (R-ME) Hassan (D-NH)* Ernst (R-IA) Warner (D-VA) Hyde-Smith (R-MI) Murkowski (R-AK)* Portman (R-OH)* * are up for re-election this year. Bit of a pain to find this information really - couldn't find a single new…
Really surprised Warner is on this list, and very unsurprised by the inclusion of both remarkable senators from Iowa