Live data from Hacker News

The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

eff.org

31–40 of 494 posts

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#32
I find myself consistently disappointed when reading blog posts like this. I generally agree with the principles that the EFF advocates for, but it's hard to see this post as anything other than rage-bait. I can't trust it to be an accurate source of information on what this bill actually does.

For example, I've repeatedly seen claims that this bill would effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption, but the bill explicitly protects companies that offer encryption from liability.

>None of the following actions or circumstances shall serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider of an interactive computer service for a claim or charge described in that paragraph:

>(i) The provider utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.

>(ii) The provider does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication.

>(iii) The provider fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services"

When I look to the EFF for an explanation about why this language isn't sufficient, I get this:

>The bill clearly leaves room to impose forms of "client-side scanning"

Going back to the bill, the phrase "client-side scanning" doesn't appear anywhere in the text despite the EFF implying that they're quoting from the bill. If they're not quoting from the bill then what exactly are they quoting from? This is the kind of thing that makes me unable to trust them to be accurate, which makes posts like this effectively useless to me since I feel the need to independently verify all of their claims.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#33
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember the PATRIOT Act?

Yep. Or the "USA PATRIOT" Act, as it's full name spells. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". But by calling it "patriot", it implies that you're not a patriot if you don't support it. Never mind that modern American "patriotism" isn't anything of the sort, but is much closer to nationalism.

It's blatant propaganda, but Americans continue to lie to themselves that they live in the freest country in the world.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#35
post #3

I'm so tired. I wish we didn't have to keep going through constant attacks on our privacy. I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point out of weariness, and I'm afraid when it comes to many people they're right.

As each generation is born not caring about privacy and posting everything for likes, I fear more are being coached to not have privacy as a priority.

In Europe this was actually done in most countries because of the absurdly incredible damage the (even very limited) information governments had during WW2 did to millions of people. That illustrated that even extremely basic information, including merely a list of all citizens, was abused by governments. And not just for racist reasons, equally to force people into occupying forces (like Russia is doing now in Ukraine)

Today we're back to pointing to governments abusing data to target minority children or immigrants to show this. And of course, governments oppose any limiting of the scope of their data collection by pointing out "security issues" (we can't have CHILDREN communicate privately! Look! 3 out of 5 million children got seduced with drugs to go into prostitution!).

Of course, governments' collection of data is not even effective, the government GOT it's data collection wishes from 10 years ago that it said was going to use for prevention (police can now access both comments from teachers AND medical reports on any kid) ... and yet the number of children ... went up, not down.

And of course, nobody wants to point out that 3 out of 3 of those children ran away from government help first chance they got. Nobody seems to feel this might indicate that perhaps something is wrong with the government, and the government's reputation, that needs to be fixed first. They are of course arguing the solution to their reputation problem is to collect more information on EVERYONE, and use more violence against children for less and less reasons, where any small excuse can be found (because 3 children were actually confirmed to have this happen to them ... the government locked up over 300 children, generally against both their own and their parents wishes. Somehow this didn't make any difference in the numbers at all, and frankly I find it very, very hard to believe the number would have risen 100 TIMES without them doing this)

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#36

4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…

> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.

Her brain is pea soup. I'm pretty sure she is not capable of connecting things.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.

Why do Californians keep re-electing her?

Don't these positions benefit from tenure as well as interpersonal relationship developed over decades?

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#38
post #7

A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…

[dead]

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.

> or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data I know we shouldn't assume malice when incompetence explains things, but I genuinely do think a lot of people who run governments do actually think they should not be affected by the same rules they want to apply to everyone else.

It's a base-level "us and them" viewpoint. The ruling class would never stand to live under the same constraints they place everyone else. That is true for just about every nation that has ever existed, at some point.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#40

4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…

> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.

On the plus side, she's incapable of voting at the moment.
Post reply on HN