The EARN IT act will ban LGBT-related content and discussions on the internet(fullhalalalchemist.tumblr.com)
fullhalalalchemist.tumblr.com
The EARN IT act will ban LGBT-related content and discussions on the internet
https://fullhalalalchemist.tumblr.com/post/675056231663190016/urgent-earn-it-act-is-back-in-the-senate
74 comments
Though it purports to address some of society’s worst crimes, in reality, the EARN It Act will do far more harm than good. It will jeopardize the privacy of every American, fundamentally alter the freedom of our online communications, and, potentially, undermine the very prosecutions it seeks to enable. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposition-s-3398-earn-it-a...
I'm all for tumblr not breaking the back button.
Ive read through the bill and I dont see what everyone is concerned about. There's a committee with no power, slight wording changes, and generic anti cp stuff. What are we supposed to be mad at?
It has no power.. yet. Better to not have a commission in the first place, especially when it will likely be used to generate witch-hunts on demand
It would give legal basis to ban the virtue signaling trans-topic flame-baiting posters from forums without the fear of getting cancelled. This is a good thing. It helps gatekeep small, niche communities that have been infested by people looking to cancel top developers, maintainers, project leaders.
Apple's on-device scanning experiment failed miserably. It was (at least, co-opted as) a litmus test for working around the post-Snowden E2EE-at-scale status quo in which we find ourselves.
I don't have enough background to understand the implications of EARN IT for the LGBT community. What is occuring, though, is a lack of common ground between libertarians and law enforcement:
If the tech idealists and law enforcement types fail to find common ground to develop robust compromises, EARN IT, which will be implemented sub-optimally out of convenience, will have the negative consequences noted by the techno-libertarian crowd.
However, a sound compromise does exist. It's just that nobody is talking about it, because most folks have strong opinions at one end or the other. The "edge", as it may be, is slated to introduce tens of trillions in new tech value in the coming decades -- all in support of hyperscale networking. It's a chance to find robust solutions that satisfy most parties, but not if the libertarians maintain the hard-line. It's up to the tech community to develop responsible encryption recovery techniques, because clearly law enforcement and congress are too provincial to understand what's at stake. Yet, by maintaining the hard line, congress will get their way, and we'll be less safe as a result.
Responsible encryption recovery is possible if you throw out the existing mechanisms of centralization along with "trust us, we're the NSA" mentality. Build your techniques around ideas that reject centralization, and reject mathematically unauditable recovery schemes. Reject techniques that exclude civil libertarians from the systems of checks and balances needed.
I say this with urgency because finding common ground is the only way we'll achieve a more responsible system of oversight for policing our private comms.
I don't have enough background to understand the implications of EARN IT for the LGBT community. What is occuring, though, is a lack of common ground between libertarians and law enforcement:
If the tech idealists and law enforcement types fail to find common ground to develop robust compromises, EARN IT, which will be implemented sub-optimally out of convenience, will have the negative consequences noted by the techno-libertarian crowd.
However, a sound compromise does exist. It's just that nobody is talking about it, because most folks have strong opinions at one end or the other. The "edge", as it may be, is slated to introduce tens of trillions in new tech value in the coming decades -- all in support of hyperscale networking. It's a chance to find robust solutions that satisfy most parties, but not if the libertarians maintain the hard-line. It's up to the tech community to develop responsible encryption recovery techniques, because clearly law enforcement and congress are too provincial to understand what's at stake. Yet, by maintaining the hard line, congress will get their way, and we'll be less safe as a result.
Responsible encryption recovery is possible if you throw out the existing mechanisms of centralization along with "trust us, we're the NSA" mentality. Build your techniques around ideas that reject centralization, and reject mathematically unauditable recovery schemes. Reject techniques that exclude civil libertarians from the systems of checks and balances needed.
I say this with urgency because finding common ground is the only way we'll achieve a more responsible system of oversight for policing our private comms.
This is was the special secret FISA court was supposed to be - a check and balance for the people vs the overlords given unconstitutional search and seizure capabilities.
Unfortunately you will never be able to argue again for the whole 'it just for [insert horrible thing here] - we can trust the overlords, and there is even a 'verify oversight board for the people'
why? because we've already seen it used not for foreign terror, but also drugs and sex and speech. It's been abused and used as an excuse by yahoo, microsoft and all the others.
Even when dreamhost fought back for a bit, there is no way to fight it truthfully (they have all the data recorded already, just easier and faster to get it with a digitally delivered request.
Obama's peeps used it for lesser things, trumps people used it for lesser things, the anti-trump people used it for lesser things. It's been used and abused against the people and the politicians.
Even when several resigned from the citizen oversight positions - a sign that shit is totally wrong - nothing changed.
The whole thing reeks so bad it's made the effbeeeye stink from the top to their lawyers even. Some of the saddest things in our history imho.
Now they want more data. It's like a group of babysitters that have already killed several wanting more access to more babies.
Unfortunately you will never be able to argue again for the whole 'it just for [insert horrible thing here] - we can trust the overlords, and there is even a 'verify oversight board for the people'
why? because we've already seen it used not for foreign terror, but also drugs and sex and speech. It's been abused and used as an excuse by yahoo, microsoft and all the others.
Even when dreamhost fought back for a bit, there is no way to fight it truthfully (they have all the data recorded already, just easier and faster to get it with a digitally delivered request.
Obama's peeps used it for lesser things, trumps people used it for lesser things, the anti-trump people used it for lesser things. It's been used and abused against the people and the politicians.
Even when several resigned from the citizen oversight positions - a sign that shit is totally wrong - nothing changed.
The whole thing reeks so bad it's made the effbeeeye stink from the top to their lawyers even. Some of the saddest things in our history imho.
Now they want more data. It's like a group of babysitters that have already killed several wanting more access to more babies.
Not. One. Inch.
You'll claw my privacy from my cold dead hands. Tech will tend to centralize over time and be incredibly attractive to those with an authoritarian bent. The world must respect that no, not even the entirety of the rest of the world wanting to be privy to the content of a communique is an acceptable reason to crack open a pair of people's shared comm over a technological link.
The price of Liberty is vigilance eternal; and home of the brave means nothing if we're too cowardly to allow others tge right to organize and think without forcing an in for the authorities in every technological medium.
There are lines, and I, for one, will not budge on this one. No matter the price.
You'll claw my privacy from my cold dead hands. Tech will tend to centralize over time and be incredibly attractive to those with an authoritarian bent. The world must respect that no, not even the entirety of the rest of the world wanting to be privy to the content of a communique is an acceptable reason to crack open a pair of people's shared comm over a technological link.
The price of Liberty is vigilance eternal; and home of the brave means nothing if we're too cowardly to allow others tge right to organize and think without forcing an in for the authorities in every technological medium.
There are lines, and I, for one, will not budge on this one. No matter the price.
Except that govt will ingratiate itself not by force, but by the stroke of a pen. This may not affect you if you have means to deploy your own E2EE in a lawful or covert manner, but it will affect the masses.
Comments about consequence for adhering to such a hard line still applicable.
Comments about consequence for adhering to such a hard line still applicable.
What kind of ridiculously sensationalized title (and blog post) is this? The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT community?
It takes almost no measures against child pornography specifically while essentially ending encryption (or moving encryption to a “first prove you’re not using it for harm” approach) and allowing an unelected commission to essentially define what is and what is not considered inappropriate for the internet to view
The bill is pushed by anti-lgbtq/religious groups under the guise of protecting children, similar to the failed California ballot measure pushed by religious groups in 2016 to require all porn viewed in California to feature the usage of condoms under the guise of promoting safe sexual practices (and allow individuals who witnessed such a video to personally sue the content provider), yet was actually a thinly veiled attempt to shut down the entire porn industry in California, where it was essentially invented.
Both of these cases should and likely would be thrown out by the Supreme Court as a direct threat against the first amendment, but who knows anymore.
The bill is pushed by anti-lgbtq/religious groups under the guise of protecting children, similar to the failed California ballot measure pushed by religious groups in 2016 to require all porn viewed in California to feature the usage of condoms under the guise of promoting safe sexual practices (and allow individuals who witnessed such a video to personally sue the content provider), yet was actually a thinly veiled attempt to shut down the entire porn industry in California, where it was essentially invented.
Both of these cases should and likely would be thrown out by the Supreme Court as a direct threat against the first amendment, but who knows anymore.
IANAL, so can someone please explain this section:
“(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider—
“(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services;
“(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or
“(C) 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.”.
“(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider—
“(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services;
“(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or
“(C) 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.”.
The commission has no power
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Commission is to 14 develop recommended best practices that providers of inter- 15 active computer services may choose to implement to pre- 16 vent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation 17 of children, including the enticement, grooming, sex traf- 18 ficking, and sexual abuse of children and the proliferation 19 of online child sexual abuse material.
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Commission is to 14 develop recommended best practices that providers of inter- 15 active computer services may choose to implement to pre- 16 vent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation 17 of children, including the enticement, grooming, sex traf- 18 ficking, and sexual abuse of children and the proliferation 19 of online child sexual abuse material.
It has no power.. yet. Better to not have a commission in the first place, especially when it will likely be used to generate witch-hunts on demand
>The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT community?
Sensationalized yes 100%, a bill that defines what is safe for children to see and not see content wise is absolutely a cause for concern as it enters a very partisan political chamber.
Sadly just cause a bill is aimed to do good does not mean the fine print doesn't screw over vast populations or has anything to do with how its advertised at the begining. Look at what the policies that made Pizza a 'vegetable', they were attached to policies to help children's health.
Sensationalized yes 100%, a bill that defines what is safe for children to see and not see content wise is absolutely a cause for concern as it enters a very partisan political chamber.
Sadly just cause a bill is aimed to do good does not mean the fine print doesn't screw over vast populations or has anything to do with how its advertised at the begining. Look at what the policies that made Pizza a 'vegetable', they were attached to policies to help children's health.
[deleted]
This reddit link had a petition of a pro pedophilia group (prostasia foundation) against it. I don't think it does any favours for people who agree dangerous information online needs to be dealt with.
[deleted]
Did you misread "mozilla" as "protasia"
From the reddit post: *UPDATE 3: The Prostasia Foundation is likely pro-map, so I deleted the link. I am dearly sorry to those I made sign that petition. The link is also not working for some people, so I replaced it with the Mozilla one.
Topics like this always remind me the actual agenda of tech/fin folks- social conservatism
_qbjt(5)
philtar(2)
What's the problem?
Everyone knows that EARN IT is aimed at Trump, white supremacists, and anti-vaxxers.
Everyone knows that EARN IT is aimed at Trump, white supremacists, and anti-vaxxers.
[0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339...