Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 06 2020, @09:40PM   Printer-friendly

Proposed US law is "Trojan horse" to stop online encryption, critics say:

Two Republicans and two Democrats in the US Senate have proposed a law that aims to combat sexual exploitation of children online, but critics of the bill call it a "Trojan horse" that could harm Americans' security by reducing access to encryption. The EARN IT (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies) Act "would create incentives for companies to 'earn' liability protection for violations of laws related to online child sexual abuse material," an announcement by the bill's supporters said today.

Under current law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides website operators broad legal immunity for hosting third-party content. A 2018 law known as FOSTA-SESTA chipped away at that immunity for content related to prostitution and sex trafficking, and the EARN IT Act would further weaken immunity for website operators who fail to take certain to-be-determined measures to find and remove child sexual-abuse material.

In a related development today, US Attorney General William Barr gave a speech calling for an analysis of how Section 230 affects "incentives for platforms to address [child sexual exploitation] crimes and the availability of civil remedies to the victims."

[...] Stewart Baker, who was formerly assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and general counsel at the National Security Agency, wrote in a blog post that "there is nothing radical" about the bill. "The risk of liability isn't likely to kill encryption or end Internet security," Baker wrote. But Baker acknowledged that the bill will likely make the decision to offer encryption a more difficult one for tech companies

Related:
U.S. Congress Passes SESTA/FOSTA Law
DoJ Lets Cops Know SESTA/FOSTA Is For Shutting Down Websites, Not Busting Sex Traffickers
Crypto Wars: US AG William Barr and UK Home Secretary Priti Patel Shake Fists at Facebook
Senate Judiciary Committee Interrogates Apple, Facebook about Crypto


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday March 06 2020, @10:52PM (12 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday March 06 2020, @10:52PM (#967689) Journal

    Since both factions aren't worth a damn, when can we start conscripting people to a single term like for jury duty? It couldn't be any worse than this nonsense.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 07 2020, @03:27PM (11 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 07 2020, @03:27PM (#967889) Journal

      Since both factions aren't worth a damn, when can we start conscripting people to a single term like for jury duty? It couldn't be any worse than this nonsense.

      What would be the point? You just completed the disconnection of oversight of the government from the wishes of the governed. Those positions will be even worse than present to be honest since the office holder will never have a better opportunity to enrich themselves (with the power to remove or circumvent any legal obstacles themselves) and you just eliminated most of the incentive to hold back. At that point, you're just hoping that the morality/ethics of the office holders (or perhaps the ire of their constituents) will be enough to prevent massive, annual looting.

      My take is that if that were to work in the first place, we wouldn't be having the problems we currently do. The flaw is to assume that elected officials are singularly defective rather than humans with power. I think the fustakrakich lottery would merely demonstrate that those flaws are far more widespread in society.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 07 2020, @05:57PM (10 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday March 07 2020, @05:57PM (#967930) Journal

        Sortition is not my idea. And you don't understand how it works. It sounds just as good as majority rule. You won't have career criminals in congress. Higher turnover is obviously necessary. They won't have the time to "enrich" themselves. And we can still punish them for criminal behavior. Why do you support the status quo so strongly? Big benefits coming your way?

        ...under sortition there is no formal feedback, or accountability, mechanism for the performance of officials, other than the law

        Nothing wrong with that... The law can be a big stick, a Sword of Damocles. Where's the problem? Laws are good, right?

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 08 2020, @03:46AM (9 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 08 2020, @03:46AM (#968074) Journal

          And we can still punish them for criminal behavior.

          Unless, of course, it is not criminal behavior.

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 08 2020, @04:23AM (8 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday March 08 2020, @04:23AM (#968090) Journal

            Non-responsive... You haven't proven it to be any worse. You're just hand waving

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 08 2020, @01:01PM (7 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 08 2020, @01:01PM (#968159) Journal

              You haven't proven it to be any worse.

              "Proven"? Let's review an incomplete list of problems with the approach.

              1. Disconnects the appointees from the would-be electorate since they aren't elected. Provides incentives to grab and run since there's no built in system like elections for rewarding voter-approved actions. And since they're in control of making the laws that determine illegality of acts like bribery and such, I think this would rapidly devolve to the lowest common denominator.
              2. Doesn't do anything about unappointed bureaucrats who would accumulate power even more so than present. After all, who will know anything about the government, particularly secretly funded programs and court systems?
              3. Who controls selection? This becomes an attack point for corruption of the system, assuming the appointments retain any relevance.

              There seems to be this broken theory that if we grab people off the street that somehow we'll get a better outcome. That somehow they're better, more moral, more intelligent, etc than the people we deliberately pick to put in office. Prove that first. My take is that the only real difference is that the politicians have power and the people off the street do not.

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 08 2020, @06:36PM (6 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday March 08 2020, @06:36PM (#968245) Journal

                It's not broken. Like everything else it merely succumbs to *might makes right*. You still have haven't shown how it can be any worse than what is happening right now, in practice, not theory

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:46AM (5 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:46AM (#968895) Journal

                  Like everything else it merely succumbs to *might makes right*.

                  Not even wrong. It's not about the mighty deciding what's right. It's creating a system without even rudimentary controls on bad behavior.

                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:57AM (4 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:57AM (#968900) Journal

                    You're just scared of losing privilege

                    --
                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:17PM (3 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:17PM (#969023) Journal
                      What privilege?
                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:56PM (2 children)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 10 2020, @02:56PM (#969073) Journal

                        Ah yes, just like the fish, 'what water'?

                        --
                        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2020, @08:22PM (1 child)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 10 2020, @08:22PM (#969267) Journal
                          No argument again, I see
                          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:27PM

                            by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 10 2020, @09:27PM (#969302) Journal

                            You offer nothing to argue... You just express fantasy

                            --
                            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..