Live data from Hacker News

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

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

241–250 of 520 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then along came Bulletin Board Systems and then the Internet, and all that changed. No BBS ever changed diddly squat. Even the internet had minimal impact on politics until the 2000's. The entire comment just sounds like speculation about a time that is, in fact, fairly recent history. We had a society in which all media was controlled by a handful of corporations who dictated what people saw and thought. That only m…

I got suspended in 1999 for distributing a copy of the anarchist's cookbook to other middle schoolers. I got it from my brother who got it from a BBS. I don't know what I was playing at, I have no need for making bombs, but at the time it was the coolest thing--media outside of the machine. I can't remember what the rest of my media experience was like (aside from text adventure games over telnet) but I'm pretty sure…

That's definitely an abridgment of your rights to free speech.

The Anarchist Cookbook is an interesting study: prior restraint was never exercised against it because Hoover's FBI decided it was protected by the First Amendment, and it was published by the same (commercial) publisher as Charles Bukowski, The Sensuous Woman, and The Turner Diaries, selling some two million copies in all. But it's so famously terrible that many actual anarchists have questioned whether it was really a false-flag effort aimed at getting would-be terrorists to blow themselves up, and its author was admittedly never an anarchist!

In 01999 many people in the US could read The Anarchist Cookbook entirely without leaving a government record simply by walking into an open-stacks public library and reading it off the shelf. Even if you checked the book out from a library branch, librarians did not enter that fact into a centralized database, and were famously reluctant to cooperate with the thoughtcrime-surveillance aspects of the PATRIOT act after 9/11.

Today this level of freedom from surveillance is much rarer: you can probably get a copy of the book in 45 seconds, as well as far more reliable and trustworthy information on how to do many terrible things, but there's an excellent chance that the NSA will store a permanent record that you did so in the Utah Data Center. (Even if you use TLS they will probably decrypt that once their quantum computing effort succeeds.) If you walk to the library, Verizon probably stores that fact permanently, unless you leave your cellphone at home; if you drive there, license-plate cameras, wireless toll systems, and possibly OnStar and Tesla record that fact.

We saw both of these futures in 01992, but so did the FBI and the NSA.

In many countries outside the US, BBSes were in many cases a bigger hole in official censorship regimes than they were in the US.

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

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then along came Bulletin Board Systems and then the Internet, and all that changed. No BBS ever changed diddly squat. Even the internet had minimal impact on politics until the 2000's. The entire comment just sounds like speculation about a time that is, in fact, fairly recent history. We had a society in which all media was controlled by a handful of corporations who dictated what people saw and thought. That only m…

If you genuinely believe that people being able to engage in a frank exchange of views hasn't changed anything... how did Orange Man get elected? :D

BBSes weren't powerful enough to elect him.

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

#243
post #75
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.

> like those canadian truckers,

I thought the protestors turned out to, by the numbers, prove to be not Canadian and not Truckers.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure why you would pick that example. There seem to be more relevant protests in the US you only have to go back a short while.

Meanwhile, it's difficult to assess if the US government has a great track record at dealing with terrorists. We're unsure of how many incidents are prevented.

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

#244

While 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…

It’s bad, but there is still some light.

This bill, remember, removes Section 230 protections against civil lawsuits for noncompliance.

The solution is fairly easy though. If your messaging app runs somewhere hard to sue (Russia, China), good luck bringing a lawsuit. Even better if it’s decentralized with no clear leader to sue.

If anything this may help get people further away from regulated tech companies.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The minute your system depends on good behavior from any of the parties involved, you've failed as a designer. It's like nobody learned anything from Snowden's revelations. The second those backdoors are available, they're going to be surrendered in secret to various three letter agencies in the name of national security. That's going to happen on day one. On day two they'll be breached by foreign intelligence servic…

>The minute your system depends on good behavior from any of the parties involved, you've failed as a designer. Everyone is bad designers then. All of them rely on operating system providers not stealing your messages. Some with the people providing the chat application. Since they have to be able to display messages they are able to log them somewhere. Society needs trust to function.

> All of them rely on operating system providers not stealing your messages.

You can compile your own operating system and control your hardware supply chain - you don't have to rely entirely on trust for those components.

> Since they have to be able to display messages they are able to log them somewhere.

If they're end-to-end encrypted, no, the people providing the chat application can't log anything except noise. That's what we're talking about outlawing here.

Regardless of the above, when I say 'system' I'm referring to a cryptosystem, not the other parts of the software stack.

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

#246
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, Feinstein doesn't give one iota of damn ... unless she is being wiretapped. And, at this point, I'm not sure that she actually even knows what she is doing. However, too many people are on the gravy train that are preventing her from resigning.

Feinstein is the senator I dislike the most. Even after she complained like a baby that the FBI had surveilled her (what did she expect?) it didn't affect her political positions one bit. She cant loose the elections because shes a Dem from CA. She cant get primaried because shes in the hands of the SV

Really? You can't think of _any_ others who have done much worse things to our country?

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're exactly wrong. The Constitution Of the United States, which I believe in unswervingly-- was written at a time when privacy was the DEFAULT. Any person could walk into any building or any field and speak, anonymously to another person. It cost quite a bit to spy on someone and that was a natural limit to how much spying could be done. The argument from the other side is always-- the framers didn't imagine a wor…

> Constitution Of the United States, which I believe in unswervingly

What does that mean?

Meanwhile, I don't really feel like there was much privacy back when the constitution was written. What makes you think there was?

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

#248

While 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…

Edit: See thread below, the EARN IT act does not in any way reclassify the designation of social media companies under section 230 or solve the issues mentioned in this post with 230. The change to 230 just provides exceptions for CSAM. However, keep reading if you want background on 230 and why many people are trying to change it. I want to provide some background on section 230 which the EARN IT act proposes to ame…

Are you looking for the government to censor all "divisive" information or just "divisive information that is false"?

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

#249
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

In 1990 school kids were pledging our fucking allegiance to an evil empire. Hell no we didn’t have a free society then.

I remember it well. Hands on hearts, droning on between the food pyramid (wherein the USDA redefined "healthy" to mean "buy what the grain lobby sells") and a D.A.R.E. poster. Meanwhile, the CIA was getting caught selling crack.

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

#250

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.

>this is how it’s supposed to be” is not a productive argument

It is nevertheless, the correct argument that is at the heart of the issue.

It needs to be had over and over again until it finally gets through the bureaucrats heads that no; your convenience does not outweigh fundamental freedom from panoptic surveillance.

Post reply on HN