Live data from Hacker News

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

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

421–430 of 520 posts

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

#421
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we all know Excepting the approval of end to end encryption and residential zoning, pretty much every problem thread on HN is littered with comments about how we need more regulation and laws to solve X or Y or Z. Wanting the "good guys" to have more power is pretty much the default response on here nowadays. I remember earlier- including before I had signed up for an account- when HN was much more libertarian,…

> Wanting the "good guys" to have more power is pretty much the default response on here nowadays. The alternative to giving a democratic government power isn't 'nobody has power'. The alternative to giving a democratic government power is ceding it to undemocratic, unelected oligarchs. When a democratic government has it, you get some say in how it is used.

Often the alternative to giving a democratic government power really is for nobody to have that power, and in many other cases the alternative is for the power to be decentralized, so that many people have some of it.

For example, we might give a democratic government the power to tap everybody's phone calls at once, but if we don't, that doesn't necessarily imply that undemocratic, unelected oligarchs, or anyone else, is tapping everybody's phone calls at once. There might just be nobody who has the power to tap phone calls, as is the case with secure free software running on trustworthy hardware, or there might be many people who have the power to tap only a few phone calls.

And we might give a democratic government the power to assign workers to jobs, for example, as the Soviets did. Alternatively, undemocratic, unelected oligarchs could assign workers to jobs, as in a coal-mining company town; but an additional possibility is that workers and employers, or unions and employers, negotiate with one another, each limiting the power of the other.

We might give a democratic government the power to decide what's for dinner each day, which sounds ridiculous but is exactly the standard practice in kibbutzim and in school lunch programs in democracies. Conceivably, undemocratic, unelected oligarchs could decide what's for dinner each day, though I don't know of any examples; the usual alternative is for each family to decide what's for dinner each day independently, though in many cases this degenerates to an undemocratic, unelected head of household deciding. Often enough, some household members prefer school cafeteria foodoid products to the results, despite having no say in that decision-making process either.

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

#422

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…

>> by making it legally risky for large social media and platform companies to offer end-to-end encryption I'm converted. I now totally support this legislation. Lack of secure encryption will bring down all the large social media companies. It happened to Blackberry during the London riots a decade ago. The kids quickly realized that someone associated with the police was reading their texts. From that point, Blackb…

... you realize it doesnt specify companies by name. If it is legally risky for Facebook, it will be legally risky for any replacement services.

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

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of us are no longer convinced traditional two-party partisanship is a useful lens through which to understand politics. Regardless of party, the politicians pushing this bill are overwhelmingly pro-surveillance state and pro-big government as well as being invested in perpetuating the two-party machine. Personally, I now see things more through a lens of those who perpetuate the two-party machine and bi…

> It's weird how many votes on something I care about fail to survive committee or amendment by just one vote. And the politicians who voted "against" the thing in the 'losing' party, all happen to be in very 'safe' districts or not facing reelection soon and those facing reelection in 'unsafe' districts happen to be the ones who voted "for" it. This concept has been identified before, and popularized by Glenn Greenw…

> popularized by Glenn Greenwald

Ah, interesting. That is a nice name for the phenomenon. Thanks for the pointer.

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

#424
post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI the zero-padded date thing is incredibly distracting and weird. (Yes I know there’s some “foundation” pushing this, but still).

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

It is totally useless to zero pad a date in a sentence, it is human to human communication.

BTW it is also useless in any other scenario.

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

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant that. Telegram was symbolic for how the freedom of some can impair the freedom of others. I have nothing against e2e encryption or privacy but as I said my liberterian worldview starts to crumble … toward what? I dont know

If you deny them Telegram, Facebook, Parler or any other online platform, people would gather offline and have their echo chambers there. Just as they did before Internet. So you're basically saying 1st amendment harms society, not online platforms.

Hmm no I am not saying that. The problem is that if they would meet offline they wouldnt be a group of 20.000 people or so in one room with the easy possibility to spread their worldview. Free speech is something valuable but beeing able to downstream information to thousand of people instant that easy is a problem. There is a difference between free speach and lying with intent to spread a certain world view.

Edit; As I said I’m a libertarian and a group of whatever people talking what ever where ever is totally fine with me but manipulating people with intent is not protected by the First Amendment And shouldn’t be confused with free speech

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

#426

Instead of just getting these shutdown how about an opposing act which puts penalties for lobbyists and politicians who back this kind of thing? I don't want to keep fighting zombie bills like these, because we will eventually miss one.

> penalties for lobbyists and politicians who back this kind of thing You want to make it illegal for people to propose and vote for policies that you don't like? What if they beat you to it and pass a law that stops you from getting your law passed?

Some parts of government should be immutable, and putting safeguards to ensure constants are constant makes a lot of sense to me.

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

#427
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free society means limited government, and the only way for the government to be in favor of that is for the government to vote against its own interests. I would argue that a free society protects people’s rights, and this is impossible without a strong government. As for voting against its own interests, the government in a true democracy is quite literally the will of the people. We get what we vote for. So if peo…

A democratic government is a government built and run for the 51%. Technically, pure anarchy is the only form of government that is for the people by the people because... theres only the people. Not some entity set above and beyond the reaches of 'The people', with authority over the people. Not that i believe in anarchy as the epitome of governance, but Bakunin has left me slightly jaded ever since i read him in hi…

> Smoking cigs are bad for your health and 80% of the people agree... So lets ban cigarettes!

Smoking is kind of a bad example here. Smoking has obvious secondary effects, i.e. secondhand smoke. I have no problem with tobacco smoking being banned from shared office spaces and other common public spaces. Sure, maybe make it possible to get somewhat easy permits to allow for things like smoking lounges, certain kinds of bars, etc. but overall I still consider it a positive that nobody is smoking at my office, movie theaters, practically all restaurants, on the train, etc.

You should have the right to inhale whatever the hell you want. But you don't have the right to force me to breathe whatever you're wanting to inhale.

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

#428
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As a student you have a far more limited right to free speech in school. See Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), the famous BONG HITS 4 JESUS case. Those students weren't even technically on school grounds (across the street) but were a part of a school function. A school definitely has the right to suspend a student for distributing material deemed interruptive to the learning environment of a school.

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

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play Devil's Advocate: people had to meet up for face-to-face communications, but they don't have to meet up for remote communication.

That’s a true fact but why does it make traditional policing impossible?

I don't think it does. We've had encrypted communications for centuries; cases have been cracked before without decoding those messages.

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

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a society in which all media was controlled by a handful of corporations who dictated what people saw and thought. That is not by any means a free society. Then along came Bulletin Board Systems and then the Internet, and all that changed. Legislation like the EARN IT Act is meant to turn back the clock to silence the voice of the people so that, once again, only the voice of the bourgeoisie can be heard.

I believe that the period you refer to had local newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations that were largely independent from this handful of corporations (ABC, CBS, NBC?). During this period, there was limited opportunity to perform population-wide surveillance on the discussion of this coverage. In those days your TV tended not to be equipped with technology that could report what you watched.

I think it's fair to say that pre-internet, there were fewer media voices but there were a lot, lot fewer attempts at surveillance.
Post reply on HN