Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 520 posts

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

#71

Post by quanticle »

E2EEd wrote: post #36
mrandish wrote: post #10

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…

E2EE is offered to all users, whether or not they are law-abiding. More precise is to say that E2EE is offered to users who are primarily law-abiding. Your points are well-heard, even by those in the IC. What isn't occurring, is a good-faith discussion on solving the issues faced by law enforcement and the IC related to the growing entropy of E2EE wielded at scale by folks, a large subset of whom are engaging in crim…

>What isn't occurring, is a good-faith discussion on solving the issues faced by law enforcement and the IC related to the growing entropy of E2EE wielded at scale by folks, a large subset of whom are engaging in criminal behavior.

I think that the tech community has extended entirely too much "good faith" towards a law enforcement and intelligence community who feel entitled to review and record all communication at their own sole discretion. I know you think that you're the "good guys", trying to keep us safe from "adversaries", but you have to understand that after the Snowden leaks, many people in the tech. industry don't see you that way. They see you as the diet-Coke version of the Chinese Ministry of State Security, and feel that if you were able to slip your legal bonds, you'd attack free speech just harshly as the Chinese Communist Party does.

Of course, from your perspective, it's not cracking down on free speech. It's "preserving democracy" by "suppressing misinformation" planted by "hostile adversaries" and "non-state actors".

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

#72

Post by catlifeonmars »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #55
E2EEd wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

E2EE is offered to all users, whether or not they are law-abiding. More precise is to say that E2EE is offered to users who are primarily law-abiding. Your points are well-heard, even by those in the IC. What isn't occurring, is a good-faith discussion on solving the issues faced by law enforcement and the IC related to the growing entropy of E2EE wielded at scale by folks, a large subset of whom are engaging in crim…

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.

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

#73

Post by omeze »

treis wrote: post #50
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…

We had a free society and democracy before the internet.

Sort of. Look up Western Unions role in the 1876 US election[1]. Stolen communications to support a specific candidate and a compromise between political parties on military presence sounds like a very precarious position for free society to be in.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/how-the-robber-b... (also referenced in Tim Wu’s The Master Switch)

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

#74

Post by treis »

whatshisface wrote: post #58
treis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a free society and democracy before the internet.

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?

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

#75

Post by akomtu »

kragen wrote: post #41
mrandish wrote: post #10

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…

> 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.

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

#77

Post by emptysongglass »

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.

But we shouldn't be having this argument over and over because some people didn't like the way it turned out the first time. We need, as a society, to find a way to limit the ability of lawmakers to turn around a scant two years later with some new approach to pushing their shot down proposal through.

It's a devious exhaustion tactic and it's unethical (without commenting on the bill itself, which I find abhorrent to a free and just society)

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

#78

Post by gotoeleven »

mrandish wrote: post #10

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…

Its nice to see that the ACLU actually opposes something that stomps on american civil liberties these days!

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

#79

Post by randomhodler84 »

E2EEd wrote: post #36
mrandish wrote: post #10

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…

E2EE is offered to all users, whether or not they are law-abiding. More precise is to say that E2EE is offered to users who are primarily law-abiding. Your points are well-heard, even by those in the IC. What isn't occurring, is a good-faith discussion on solving the issues faced by law enforcement and the IC related to the growing entropy of E2EE wielded at scale by folks, a large subset of whom are engaging in crim…

No post body was provided.

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

#80

Post by cossatot »

fallingknife wrote: post #26
prepend wrote: post #2

I wish they would address real problems like arbitrary enforcement of TOS that damages users with no recourse. There’s no regulation for what happens when Google or Facebook or whatever deletes or blocks an account and provides no support. Child abuse is serious, but not that common and this law will do little to change that. The lack of a UCC-style law for big tech platforms affects way more people. This seems like…

Squelching small players is the intent. Large institutions are easy to exert political control over. It's hard to exert political control over masses of individuals. It benefits the Republican party when you get your news from FOX. It benefits the Democratic party when you get your news from CNN. It does not benefit the Democratic or Republican party when any individual can broadcast their views to millions of willin…

FOX and CNN are constantly accused of spreading misinformation by huge swaths of the populace (but not necessarily the same swath for both networks).
Post reply on HN