The EARN IT Act will change section 230 if passed - "How to Ban End-to-End Encryption Without Actually Banning It"

  • 🔧 Actively working on site again.

kiwifarmsfan1

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 13, 2018
Here is an analysis of the EARN IT act by Standford Law


Besides other major changes, and hoops you'll have to go through, below is the part that stood out to me is. The whole article goes step by step pointing out problems, and the second half is just prose about how it will allow the government to exploit and threaten places.

  • Section 230 immunity for CSAM can be earned via 1 of 2 “safe harbors”:
    • 1: Compliance with “recommended” “best practices” for the prevention of online child exploitation conduct, TBD by a new 15-member commission
      • Analysis: Encryption, particularly end-to-end encryption, is likely to be targeted as being contrary to “best practices” for preventing CSAM, because if a provider cannot “see” the contents of files on its service due to encryption, it is harder to detect CSAM files.
      • The commission would include at least 4 law enforcement reps, 4 tech industry reps, 2 reps of child safety organizations, and 2 computer scientists/software engineering experts
        • Analysis: No representative is required to speak for users or civil society.
      • The commission “shall consider” users’ interests in privacy, data security, and product quality
        • Analysis: This is very weak language; it means the commission can “consider” these interests for a few seconds, chuckle to themselves, and then move on.
      • The commission recommends best practices to the Attorney General, who has the power to unilaterally change them before they’re finalized, as long as he writes up some reason for the changes.
        • Analysis: This means the AG could single-handedly rewrite the “best practices” to state that any provider that offers end-to-end encryption is categorically excluded from taking advantage of this safe-harbor option. Or he could simply refuse to certify a set of best practices that aren’t sufficiently condemnatory of encryption. If the AG doesn’t finalize a set of best practices, then this entire safe-harbor option just vanishes.
      • A “best practice” requires the approval of only 10 of the 15 commission members in order to be recommended on to the AG.
        • Analysis: This means that the commission could totally ignore both of the computer scientists, or both of the child safety org reps, or all 4 tech industry reps, so long as it can hit the 10-person quorum.
      • An officer of the provider must certify compliance with the best practices; “knowing” false statements are a federal felony, carrying a fine and a 2-year prison term.
        • Analysis: The language of the certification requirement doesn’t sound optional; it sounds like officers are compelled to certify, whether it’s true or not.
    • 2: Implementing other “reasonable measures” instead of the best practices
      • Unlike certifying compliance with the prescribed best practices, which guarantees Section 230 immunity, taking the “reasonable measures” option is not a guaranteed way of “earning” immunity.
      • Analysis: It’s not exactly a real “safe harbor” if the provider still has to litigate the 230 immunity question. Providers that can’t/won’t/don’t certify adherence to the “best practices” will have to take their chances on whether their chosen measures will be deemed “reasonable” by a court.
      • Analysis: Would a court find end-to-end encryption to be “reasonable,” when the goal is not data security, but instead, combating CSAM? Providers would struggle to reconcile their duty to provide “reasonable” data security, as imposed by the FTC and dozens of state data-security laws, with a conflicting duty not to encrypt information because it’s “unreasonable” under the EARN IT Act.
 
Out of all of the retarded things to blame Jews for, you're blaming them for being too anti child porn? Do you even understand that hardcore jew haters think they're all pedos?
 
Last edited:
Having Blumenthal's name attached to it is an auto-kill for me.

Graham isn't much better; although he's taken the dick out of his mouth on some of his committee roles in the last few years, when it comes to legislation he's still as worthless as ever, especially on matters like this. Anybody whose stated position is "you have nothing to worry about as long as you have nothing to hide" absolutely is not equipped for even an entry level conversation on why the government should not be allowed to sidestep the 5th Amendment by antagonizing businesses instead of individuals.

Stop trying to read my emails you sickos.
 
The best way you can prevent posting of horrific content on the internet is if you make the internet a whiltelist where only approved companies and individuals can use it, and it requires biometric authorization and identification, only a narrow amount of content is allowed, and that real time monitoring is implemented to prevent and ban anybody who falls out of line.

But that would just send everybody else to sidechannels, in person swap meets, etc. Not to mention that is antithetical to innocent people's free exchange of ideas and information, which tends to allow society to grow and prosper, until authoritarians get their feelings hurt and start cracking down like they are currently doing, creating a lot of dysfunction.

The other way, the traditional way, is to not spy on everybody and treat everybody like criminals, and when somebody does something wrong, hold them accountable, and with the internet, use its open nature to create a profile on them and catch them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ??? and Splendid
Once this bill passes - and reddit and 4chan are burned to the ground - only KiwiFarms will remain as the true arbiter of discussion on the internet. Null is playing 4-d chess.

Future generations trawling through the wreckage of the internet, will only be able to interpret this era from the primary sources of psychotics, pedophiles and obese trannies.
 
Last edited:
Just another kill-encryption bill, this time disguised as a think-of-the-children! bill.
They all are. Every single fucking bill ever written with the intent of fucking you was presented as if it would stop children from getting fucked. It never does. The government doesn't give a fuck about kids. They would pimp children out if it earned them a nickel. Not a single fucking person in government hasn't indirectly murdered children by their actions.

If you ever see the word "Children" in a bill's long name you know for a fucking fact it's a big floppy cock aiming for your asshole
 
Well I assume it's gonna happen, so how can I profit from this bill?
 
Well I assume it's gonna happen, so how can I profit from this bill?

Extort money from social media companies and if they don't comply spam cub porn under trending tags from VPNs.
 
Sent out emails and called my reps, as if it makes any difference. Hoping this shit doesn't go through.
I sent a message to my senator. Politicians are gross. We need people in government who understand and value the internet.
atleast you guys are doing what's in our power (lel) to do about this. You have my respect. :semperfidelis:Imma do the same as well, because not even trying means you have no right to complain. Complacency is what's ruined this great country to begin with.
 
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your senator, it is important that I hear from you.

I appreciate hearing your concerns about the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act. This bill, which was introduced by Senator Graham on March 5, 2020, would establish a National Commission on Online Child Exploitation Prevention to explore the best practices for providers of interactive computer services to prevent online child exploitation conduct. Recommendations from the Commission would be submitted to the Attorney General every two years, who would have the opportunity to review, modify, and then publish the final practices. To continue receiving immunity from legal action under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that prevents online platforms from being held liable for content posted by users, web service providers must comply with the Committee’s best practices, or implement other reasonable measures to prevent the spread of online child exploitation conduct.

Child exploitation is a truly heinous crime, and addressing it is a priority. Human traffickers know that children use social media and other internet platforms frequently, so they take advantage of these avenues to exploit them. This is particularly concerning because of the constantly changing digital landscape. Apps and trends change, and children are increasingly vulnerable to online predators.

During my time in the Senate, I have worked to better protect children from online exploitation. In 2017, I cosponsored the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. This bill clarified Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to end legal protections for websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with trafficking victims. Additionally, the Senate Judiciary Committee, where I serve as a senior member, recently held a hearing entitled, “Protecting Innocence in a Digital World” during which I questioned witnesses about the best ways to protect children from inappropriate content online. The full hearing can be found at the following link: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/protecting-innocence-in-a-digital-world.

I understand there are concerns regarding the impact of the EARN IT Act on the use of encryption technologies and privacy. The core of the Fourth Amendment requires that, with limited exceptions, when a law enforcement officer is investigating a crime, the officer must obtain an individualized warrant or court order to conduct a search that would violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. And that order must be issued by a neutral and detached judge based on facts that demonstrate probable cause. Through this brilliant framework, for over 200 years, our constitutional system has preserved the rule of law, ensured our public safety is maintained, and protected our individual privacy and civil liberties. But recently, prominent law enforcement officials have been questioning whether the laws Congress has enacted over the years to adapt that framework to changing technology are adequate to the task today.

What officials have been telling us is that increasingly, even after they have obtained authority from a judge to conduct a search for evidence of a crime, they lack the technical means to do so. Companies are increasingly choosing to encrypt devices in such a way that the company itself is unable to unlock them, even when presented with a valid search warrant. They fear that these encrypted devices are becoming the equivalent of closets and safes that can never be opened, even when a judge has expressly authorized a search for evidence inside them. They also note that the problem is getting dramatically worse, and it’s having a real effect on their ability to protect the public and to bring criminals to justice.

On the other hand, as more of our lives have ended up on digital platforms, devices, and on the internet, our data has increasingly become a target for hackers, criminals, and foreign governments. We pick up the newspaper and read about breaches that have left personal data exposed almost on a daily basis. We want our data to remain private and secure, and it’s natural that companies seek to respond to this market demand.

You may be interested to know that on December 10, 2019, the Senate Judiciary Committee, held a hearing entitled, “Encryption and Lawful Access: Evaluating Benefits and Risks to Public Safety and Privacy”. During this hearing, we heard from both law enforcement and individuals from Apple and Facebook on the benefits and risks of the use of end to end encryption technology. The full Committee hearing can be watched at the following link: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/encryption-and-lawful-access-evaluating-benefits-and-risks-to-public-safety-and-privacy.

Additionally, on March 11, 2020, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the EARN IT Act entitled, "The EARN IT Act: Holding the Tech Industry Accountable in the Fight Against Online Child Exploitation". The hearing can be found here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-earn-it-act-holding-the-tech-industry-accountable-in-the-fight-against-online-child-sexual-exploitation.

In light of the information we heard during these hearings, it is clear that this is an important and complicated issue, but I remain hopeful that through continued dialogue finding a consensus that balances both the need for public safety and privacy is possible. Please rest assured that as the Senate continues to discuss how to best address this issue that I will keep your concerns about the EARN It Act in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value your input and ask that you please keep in touch.



Sincerely,
0FWAXS_MWcsv5W886eh6qzZlXP41PgJKhOujt5-grXvJc99UlSNjR-0AK-OGVyjo0mXns1MhTN0WjLJtdoQ5ZWhFvqj1yDHdxhhWJHVWNfCEBCSM_gfVyaTrZQ=s0-d-e1-ft

Chuck Grassley
United States Senate

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
CHAIRMAN,
FINANCE
AGRICULTURE
BUDGET
JUDICIARY
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS
CONTROL CAUCUS


The reply i was given

 
Last edited:
Back