EARN IT Act S.3398 and LAED Act S.4051

[CastIronHits]

I haven't seen any discussion about these bills moving through the Senate. They could greatly impact the discussions had on FC as well as other social platforms.

S.3398 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): EARN IT Act of 2020

Summary of S.3398 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): EARN IT Act of 2020

www.congress.gov

The New EARN IT Bill Still Threatens Encryption and Free Speech

The day before a committee debate and vote on the EARN IT Act, the bill’s sponsors replaced their bill with an amended version. Here’s their new idea: instead of giving a 19-person federal commission, dominated by law enforcement, the power to regulate the Internet, the bill now effectively gives...

www.eff.org

You may be distracted by the pandemic but FYI: US Senate panel OK's backdoors-by-the-backdoor EARN IT Act

Proposed Section 230 shake-up passes committee stage with amendments

www.theregister.com

S.4051 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act

Summary of S.4051 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act

www.congress.gov

The Senate’s New Anti-Encryption Bill Is Even Worse Than EARN IT, and That’s Saying Something

Right now, we rely on secure technologies like never before—to cope with the pandemic, to organize and march in the streets, and much more. Yet, now is the moment some members of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have chosen to try to effectively outlaw encryption in those very...

www.eff.org

There’s Now an Even Worse Anti-Encryption Bill Than EARN IT. That Doesn’t Make the EARN IT Bill OK.

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

 

[Tranquility]

Don't trust China, China is asshole.

U.S. too.

There are reasons why encryption back-doors will make it easier to catch bad guys. However, as with the FISA nonsense of the previous administration(s), all the processes they put up to show how much they care about our rights are not enforced and the people who violate them get little in consequences. That may change as FISA violations are a part of Durham's mandate. But it is clear the government will use large scale surveillance on all of our communications if encryption gets a back door. Just look at what they can do with the metadata from phones. Some may like such government control. While it results in a less free society, it will result in a safer one.

For me, the balance on freedom/safety in this instance demands encryption.

 

[CastIronHits]

Mainly, I am curious HOW things would change around here with staff held legally responsible for content posted on FC? The Section 230 protections were meant for this exact situation.

Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

 

[Tranquility]

Mainly, I am curious HOW things would change around here with staff held legally responsible for content posted on FC? The Section 230 protections were meant for this exact situation.

Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

While a valid point on the protections of Section 230, it was not the encryption issues brought up. As to the 230 protections, they get to the difference in law between a publisher and a distributor. A publisher is one who's opinion is getting out there while a distributor has little control over the message. (Other than content-neutral moderation.)

 

[CastIronHits]

EARN IT Act ignites Section 230 tug-o-war

TikTok bans coming for federal employees — FCC faces pressure to act on coronavirus

www.politico.com

Why you should absolutely worry about the anti-privacy EARN IT Act

Yes, even the amended version threatens encryption and the internet as we know it.

mashable.com

" At issue is the seemingly unrelated EARN IT Act. Pushed by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and a host of bipartisan co-sponsors, and voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, the measure ostensibly aims to combat online child sexual abuse material. However, according to privacy and security experts who spoke with Mashable, the bill both directly threatens end-to-end encryption and promises to spur new and sustained online censorship by weakening Section 230 — a provision of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 that protects internet providers from being held liable for their users' actions. "

 

[Tranquility]

The weakening has to do with child exploitation and abuse on line. If the site does not moderate to keep off that stuff, the proposed changes would remove Section 230 protections. Technical means are allowed. (aka "other reasonable practices") The change seems to relate only to purported publications of child exploitation and abuse and does not seem to remove all 230 protection for defamation if a child porn post slips through. (Although, reading the proposals are hard as there are many out there and it is impossible to know what a court will decide.)

 

[CastIronHits]

I believe it's a red herring and the name has very little to do with the application. Just as the Patriot Act had very little to do with being a patriot.

 

[Tranquility]

I believe it's a red herring and the name has very little to do with the application. Just as the Patriot Act had very little to do with being a patriot.

I think you're right.

But, I also think your concern over 230 issues is appropriate. There is a move on to be more aggressive in determining how much control over content will change a person from a distributor (no liability) to a publisher (liability). While the focus is on the larger entities like Google, Facebook or Twitter, once a court finds liability somewhere, Katie bar the doors for the suits that would be filed testing the theory even on little guys.

 

[Tranquility]

Here's a DOJ publication on Section 230 protections. While not the topic of the thread, I'm not sure where else to put it.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S REVIEW OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996