The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever

Post by kortilla » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 11:34 PM UTC

umbauk wrote: post #13

ridaj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no regulation for what happens when Google or Facebook or whatever deletes or blocks an account and provides no support. Yes there is, per the trade regulations you're entitled to a refund . Wait I'm only partly sarcastic. If you think you're entitled to anything provided as a free service then the problem starts there. Do I miss the days when ISPs provided email as part of your subscription? Then made you…

Well one could argue Google and FB services are not free. Those 2 companies are 2 of the most profitable, valuable companies in the world. If they are providing their services for free, how can that be? Our attention and information is what they profit from, and that should not be undervalued. They are certainly not providing these services to us out of the goodness of their hearts.

Post by seanw444 » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 11:35 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #61

We should design cryptosystems that include functionality that support warrants as opposed to being antiencryption and removing encryption.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 11:35 PM UTC

akomtu wrote: post #75

kragen wrote: post #41

Earlier 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…

The gov isnt worried about criminals or terrorists: those guys are easy to deal with. The gov is worried about organised protests, like those canadian truckers, because protesters are protected by laws. Encrypted communications is an obvious enabler of such protests.

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 11:37 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #74

whatshisface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, no, not with the media deciding what everybody heard. We had as much of a free society as convenience combined with the interests of every individual running TV news allowed. It was a complex system and I wouldn't want to describe it all here, but the fact that you and I can talk to each other in front of anyone who wants to listen in, is far ahead of anything that existed then.

>Not really, no, What? You're really arguing that, to put a year on it, in 1990 we didn't have a free society and democracy?

Post by MereInterest » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 11:40 PM UTC

catlifeonmars wrote: post #72

matheusmoreira wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law enforcement issues don't override all other concerns. If life is difficult for them, good. That's the point. It should be difficult in order to prevent abuse of power. Encryption is a perfectly reasonable reaction to governments that give themselves the right to surveil the entire planet. Nobody really cares that it makes their life harder. That's exactly what it's supposed to do. It should be incredibly hard if…

> This is how it's supposed to be. According to you, which is OPs point exactly. The discussion needs to be framed in a way that stakeholders are walking in common ground, not yelling at each other at a distance from their respective ideological ivory towers. FWIW I happen to agree with you, but IMO “this is how it’s supposed to be” is not a productive argument.