The anti-privacy EARN IT Act could change the internet as we know it

https://mashable.com/article/earn-it-act-threatens-privacy-encryption-section-230/

by joeyespo • 6 years ago

250 41 6 years ago

mashable.com

joeblow9999• 6 years ago

its a disaster in the making. it absolutely needs to be stopped

smartbit2• 6 years ago

previous discussions https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22earn%20it%20act%22

lowmemcpu• 6 years ago

Glad you posted this but...

This is one of those multi-day, multi-faceted topics that need us to have many conversations until it's stopped.

Recall the SOPA & PIPA protests of last decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA

There were more than a few discussions here

ocdtrekkie• 6 years ago

HN doesn't really need constant repeat of political promotion. It's been discussed, if there's nothing new happening, it probably doesn't belong on HN.

ericd3• 6 years ago

Requiring everyone to discuss this every few years seems like a surefire strategy to exhaust people. It normalizes the idea, if nothing else.

So the question is how do we get it so that supporting ending effective encryption is a political third rail that ends political careers? Because that seems like the only way to get this to stop coming up until it eventually passes.

Feinstein seems to be a perpetual supporter of this kind of thing. But she keeps getting voted in by CA of all places.

The full list of PIPA supporters according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Members_of_the_U.S._Co...): Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Chris Coons (D-DE) Bob Corker (R-TN) Dick Durbin (D-IL) Mike Enzi (R-WY) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Al Franken (D-MN) Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Withdrawn 1/18/12[11] Kay Hagan (D-NC) Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Tim Johnson (D-SD) Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Herb Kohl (D-WI) Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) John McCain (R-AZ) Bob Menendez (D-NJ) Bill Nelson (D-FL) Jim Risch (R-ID) Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) Tom Udall (D-NM) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

dang• 6 years ago

You can also use "comments>N" and "points>N" to narrow down to the major threads, a la https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

smartbit2• 6 years ago

Thanks @dang

jjcon4• 6 years ago

Just please go read the latest versions of the bill people

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339...

A ton of companies stand to lose by this bill so it may be wise to adopt some skepticism towards all the doom and gloom.

This bill is ever evolving and they have been closing the gaps people were worried about re encryption(and now there are complaints about new issues). Are there holes that could be exploited, perhaps but a lot of them have been closed. I know it isn’t popular to say it but this isn’t turning out to be nearly as draconian as most people are making out to be.

blitmap2• 6 years ago

If it has any chance of passing, it could very much cripple the tech sector in the US and make us less competitive.

On the other side of the coin, this is not going to stop individuals from using encryption that isn't broken. It would be ugly to see what it does in commercial spaces, and to your average citizen whose data is less protected. I think it would force a knowledgeable subcommunity further into the shadows while everything else burns.

jjcon4• 6 years ago

You replied to my comment but you didn’t even read the bill.

Read the amendments, they specifically outline that the scope of this bill will not impact encryption laws (which they added specifically because of all the fear-mongering brought by the companies that stand to lose from this bill).

jjoonathan5• 6 years ago

Do they still want to make a skeleton key for the internet and entrust it to the same people who couldn't protect the database containing secrets from their own background checks and who argue with a straight face that xkeyscore didn't count as a search under the 4th Amendment?

jjcon4• 6 years ago

Do they still want to make a skeleton key for the internet

No, this bill never did that and the updates make it explicit that it will not do this. Read the bill.

emidln• 6 years ago

The current version establishes a commission of 19 people which are composed of various interests. Of those interests 2 of are civil liberties experts and 2 of which are computer science or cryptography experts. 14 members are required to pass resolutions. So the cryptographers and civil liberties people can just be ignored by the prosecutors and entrenched corporate representatives.

No thanks. This is just as open-ended in the downside as before.

thephyber3• 6 years ago

If the bill still claims to be about "child online exploitation", that's plenty reason to be skeptical. "Think of the children" is a powerful weapon because it's easy for the sponsors to politically assassinate anyone who votes against it. Source: I worked for a company that used that argument when lobbying.

I know enough about myself to know I'm not qualified to represent myself in court and I'm not qualified to read the text of a bill and pretend like I understand it.

I trust the EFF[1] to represent my values.

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still...

JoeSmithson2• 6 years ago

By this logic, no legislation can ever seek to reduce online child sexual exploitation

Nasrudith2• 6 years ago

It "evolving" isn't a reason to let down your guard, it is more reason to hammer a stake in the bastard's heart before it becomes something even worse. There is nothing good about it.

yarrel• 6 years ago

"...the newly amended version of the bill essentially gives state lawmakers the ability to regulate the internet, according to Joe Mullin, a policy analyst with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who broke down the censorship risks posed by the measure should it become law.

"All 50 states will be able to write new Internet rules that online platforms and websites will have to follow,""

theferalrobot• 6 years ago

I’m 99% sure that that is already the case (and has been).

Nasrudith2• 6 years ago

It is a matter of enforcibility. Alabama can try to ban say women with exposed ankles and you as an operator of a website in California can tell the DA in a notorized letter to go fuck themselves because they lack jurisdiction.

shmerl• 6 years ago

There should be a wider protest to sink this nonsense.

LatteLazy• 6 years ago

Here in the UK similar laws were referred to as a Snoopers Charter. This was good PR against them as it was catchy and unattractive. Don't call these acts by their "name" (which is just someone's bullshit acronym to make it sound harmless). Call it "the tax on freedom" or "government in your bedroom" law. That's how you get the 99% to decide they don't like it.

JoeSmithson2• 6 years ago

What similarities do you see between EARN IT and IPA?

StanislavPetrov• 6 years ago

There are so many awful things about this bill that its hard to know where to begin. What makes it especially ridiculous is that it does nothing to prevent people with even basic technical knowledge from sending encrypted communications. At the end of the day, encryption is simply math. You can't outlaw math.

The anti-privacy EARN IT Act could change the internet as we know it

Related Stories