The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/earn-it-bill-back-again-seeking-scan-our-messages-and-photos

by glitcher • 3 years ago

1264 439 3 years ago

eff.org

LorenPechtel• 3 years ago

They keep trying to get rid of privacy.

ethbr0• 3 years ago

Piracy and privacy are so difficult to distinguish.

So few letters. Better to just get rid of both.

rahidz• 3 years ago

Our privacy. Which billionaire travels to which island while abusing which child, financed by what money, will remain happily hidden away.

trackflak• 3 years ago

There is a Bible verse that says every deed done in darkness shall be named in the light. At times like these, I wish the deity who inspired it was a little more proactive.

alexfromapex2• 3 years ago

They're trying to get rid of everything that isn't somehow serving corporations.

notRobot• 3 years ago

I'm so tired. I wish we didn't have to keep going through constant attacks on our privacy. I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point out of weariness, and I'm afraid when it comes to many people they're right.

maerF0x02• 3 years ago

Part of it is that we buy into it, literally. If you want to stop it, stop buying into companies that are compliant and sell you out in their technology choices.

sgjohnson7• 3 years ago

And 3 steps after that you’ll have to go live off grid in a cabin in the woods.

As romantic as it sounds, the one single purpose for for-profit companies is to produce shareholder value, and very few of them see shareholder value in keeping a legal department specifically designed for fighting constant and endless attacks on our privacy.

Much more profitable to do anything else instead.

Shocka1• 3 years ago

I like your vision here, but the average person living in the USA cares about two things - sports and social media. This is an exaggeration and don't get me wrong, I love a good football game here and there, but there is some truth to it.

Over the years I've received so many odd looks when I bring up privacy that I've stopped and just accepted that my vote or email to my representative is all I can do. I hate to be cynical, but this train isn't derailing anytime soon. EFF is doing God's work here, but the American citizen will continue to be hypnotized until things get bad enough for them to care, in which it will already be too late.

HeckFeck2• 3 years ago

Remember when major websites used to blackout over TTIP and SOPA? Those were good days.

Now many of the same websites (eg Reddit) are owned by large entities who don't care. Probably because they've made their money, so who needs a free Internet?

BitwiseFool• 3 years ago

Cynically, I know each time these platforms do such a thing the response will be less and less effective. The bad-faith actors in government pushing for this know that and have demonstrated that they just need to wait a little while between attempts before resistance diminishes enough to make its passage viable.

abracadaniel• 3 years ago

The walled gardens are so well established now, their business plans no longer rely on a free Internet. We were lucky at the time that our interests aligned, but it was worrying that we were only able to fight those with the help of our favorite corporations. Now we get to see how that plays out with that support.

api• 3 years ago

I bet some of the big social media companies like this legislation because it'll make it harder to run a web site, social media company, or chat app, thus insulating them from competition.

Onerous regulations are a kind of regressive tax on businesses, favoring very large firms with big budgets and lobbyists over upstarts and small business.

phendrenad2• 3 years ago

large entities who don't care.

Not only do they not care, they benefit from these laws, because they have the resources to implement new requirements while smaller sites don't.

lagniappe• 3 years ago

As each generation is born not caring about privacy and posting everything for likes, I fear more are being coached to not have privacy as a priority.

candiodari• 3 years ago

In Europe this was actually done in most countries because of the absurdly incredible damage the (even very limited) information governments had during WW2 did to millions of people. That illustrated that even extremely basic information, including merely a list of all citizens, was abused by governments. And not just for racist reasons, equally to force people into occupying forces (like Russia is doing now in Ukraine)

Today we're back to pointing to governments abusing data to target minority children or immigrants to show this. And of course, governments oppose any limiting of the scope of their data collection by pointing out "security issues" (we can't have CHILDREN communicate privately! Look! 3 out of 5 million children got seduced with drugs to go into prostitution!).

Of course, governments' collection of data is not even effective, the government GOT it's data collection wishes from 10 years ago that it said was going to use for prevention (police can now access both comments from teachers AND medical reports on any kid) ... and yet the number of children ... went up, not down.

And of course, nobody wants to point out that 3 out of 3 of those children ran away from government help first chance they got. Nobody seems to feel this might indicate that perhaps something is wrong with the government, and the government's reputation, that needs to be fixed first. They are of course arguing the solution to their reputation problem is to collect more information on EVERYONE, and use more violence against children for less and less reasons, where any small excuse can be found (because 3 children were actually confirmed to have this happen to them ... the government locked up over 300 children, generally against both their own and their parents wishes. Somehow this didn't make any difference in the numbers at all, and frankly I find it very, very hard to believe the number would have risen 100 TIMES without them doing this)

Dalewyn6• 3 years ago

Strong men make good times.

Good times make weak men.

Weak men make bad times.

Bad times make strong men.

colinsane6• 3 years ago

my ideal is to bring my complete, unadulterated self everywhere i may go. pursue authenticity, lower the barrier between myself and others. if i hide my intimate thoughts behind a wall of privacy then i may never experience intimacy. i may never feel at home among my friends or neighbors.

i put my pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else, anyone who wants to look through my window in the morning can verify that for themselves. shame is defeated by coming out of your shell, not hiding inside it. i draw the shades and recede to my private world only when i want to remove stimuli for the sake of deep focus. or when i'm fearful of this abstract mass of power hanging always above me at every moment and threatening to destroy me if i'm honest about how i enjoy the "wrong" drugs, or about how i embrace a moral compass which guides me to not fund the machine that takes my brothers away from me and pits them in armed conflict against my sisters, come tax season.

as far as i can tell that's the only "good" reason to embrace privacy: that in this crazy contradiction it's impossible to be authentic if the wrong people know you as you are. i don't think it's good to use that as a basis on which to idealize privacy in the abstract. i think it's deeply disturbing and we should use it as a basis to fight all these real things which make one fear authenticity. privacy is a necessary stopgap: negating power imbalances is the most proximate thing to a solution.

kudos to the young and bold who seek to find themselves among others. praise to the old and scarred who fight to make that possible.

alexfromapex2• 3 years ago

People need to realize that every good thing the government steals is done through a war of attrition.

whitemary• 3 years ago

This is why the Chinese pity western "democracy," and it's quite easy to see where they're coming from. Of course, it's well established that the US is merely an oligarchy with a massive domestic propaganda operation.

JPws_Prntr_Fngr3• 3 years ago

Upvoted because the first sentence might be true, and the second one definitely is.

I would say that the US and China are both fantastic examples of why you don't want to allow the construction of a surveillance infrastructure - privatized and public, respectively. We pity each other partially thanks to the propaganda - but I think more importantly because we really are pitiable.

duxup2• 3 years ago

I donate to the EFF, is that enough, I don’t know but I feel like I’m doing something.

hammyhavoc11• 3 years ago

Well, what quantifiable benefit is the public gaining from the EFF? Do you know where your money goes? Does what they publish reach anybody new? Or is it just preaching to the choir?

beauHD• 3 years ago

I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point out of weariness

This is just yet another attempt at Lawful Interception[0], only this time, on steroids. They will continue to try and erode privacy, and therefore, erode democracy. But we do have tools to combat this at our disposal. My only worry is the outright banning of such tools, then we're royally fucked.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception

Kerrick• 3 years ago

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

ryandrake• 3 years ago

Eternal is the key word, too. That's the problem with doing this in law: It will just get introduced over and over perpetually until finally it slips through, and then it's pretty much with us forever. The bad guys only have to win once. The good guys have to win every time.

pksebben5• 3 years ago

I feel like we just have to hold out for another couple of decades - until there aren't any boomers left in government.

This whole clusterfuck is a result of old people not knowing their ass from a pihole.

JohnFen5• 3 years ago

If history is any guide, the people who will replace the boomers will not be any different. The root cause is not related to age or generation, it's related to power.

betaby• 3 years ago

I EU and Canada such laws are pushed by relatively yang folks as well, like ones in their 40s.

bregma2• 3 years ago

And you know, the boomers felt exactly the same about the generation they were replacing. At least some things don't change.

somenameforme2• 3 years ago

You may want to check out the list of the sponsors of this bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/120...

And that's just the sponsors, not the people who will vote for it. Some on that list do belong in nursing homes, but age is not a factor. It's mostly just the political establishment and newcomers hoping to join that establishment.

at-fates-hands• 3 years ago

Sometime in the early aughts (sometime right after 9/11), I remember an interview with a group of three NSA whistle blowers who were coming forward trying to raise the alarm the US govt was using the tools they had developed to stop terror attacks on the US and had turned those tools back on the US population and were gathering unimaginable amounts of data for that purpose on private citizens.

Shortly after they came forward, I read an article stating gathering so much data on so many people essentially allowed any real terrorist (domestic or foreign) to essentially hide in plain view because of the amount of data being collected could not be sifted through fast enough to flag any person or group before they were able to carry out an attack.

Yes, I'm very much on your side in terms of the constant attacks on our privacy and rights. While at the same time, I acknowledge that there is some inherit defense to them gathering too much data which in some sense allows us to maintain some level of privacy in the meantime.

guy98238710• 3 years ago

It's a mistake to just protest these proposals. Counter-proposals that push the balance in opposite direction should be made and pushed through, including some that cut down on existing legislation. A lot of good arguments can be made to support them.

trinsic27• 3 years ago

Yes I agree you have to shift your energy to something else, the more you put your energy on dis-empowerment, the stronger it becomes. Take the tools that are being used for the wrong purposes and put them to use for the right purposes.

rdiddly• 3 years ago

I just keep wondering what the hell is wrong with the people who think junk like this is a good idea. And why there are any. Theory: They're child-molesters themselves?

BizarroLand2• 3 years ago

Maybe there is some light in them that says, "Well, if it turns out everyone does <Whatever abhorrent thing they're doing>, then it's not so bad that I did it, right? I could even win brownie points by punishing the other people who did it and absolve myself of my own consciously unrecognizable guilt by doing so, right?"

trinsic27• 3 years ago

Illegitimate governments stay in power because we legitimize them with our energy. To stop power centralizing requires that the people supporting it shift their energy to something else, preferably local initiatives that center around people doing things for people..

xkfiebfifbek• 3 years ago

but a few ppl with guns and a mandate on violence can maximize the energy they give.

there's a reason early central governments were all symbolized by a stick.

maerF0x02• 3 years ago

A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power:

Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused

[1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...

[2] https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca...

[3] https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-searches-dr...

AnimalMuppet2• 3 years ago

People abuse their power, but that wouldn't matter if you really had nothing to hide. But everybody has something to hide.

Your social security number? Your bank account number? Your debit card PIN? Yeah, pretty sure you have something to hide.

isk517• 3 years ago

The other issue is just because something doesn't need to be hidden today doesn't mean a change in the political/social winds could happen that requires you to hide it tomorrow.

x86x874• 3 years ago

No. Sorry. This is invalid. It would be pretty bad if we declare some shit illegal and retroactively apply the "law". You will be charged for shit that everyone did and is perfectly fine. For example: How would you like to go to jail for not being a Christian? This will be weaponized.

This is what fascism looks like.

croes4• 3 years ago

Or like the anti-abortion laws showed, at first you have nothing to hide, them they change laws and all of sudden you have but it's too late

yakubin3• 3 years ago

That’s the second time I see bank account number framed as something private. Why? It doesn’t authorise anyone to do anything. It’s not like a debit/credit card number.

jcutrell• 3 years ago

For people who say they have nothing to hide, I ask them why they have locks on their doors, passwords to their email, and clothes on their body.

hammyhavoc11• 3 years ago

Well, clothes are mostly down to weather and laws on public decency, and nudists are the counterpoint that prove some demographics would prefer to be naked if the law allowed it, same with tribes like Koma.

Locks are more for security than privacy, and it's important not to conflate the two. People can have nothing to hide, but also not want to be robbed.

And as for email, that's again a matter of security because then someone could impersonate you for one, and I can't name a service that allows you to omit having a password for your email account.

(I know, looking too deeply into it! Sorry.)

stronglikedan• 3 years ago

Easy: Thieves, scammers, and public decency laws, in that order.

NickBusey• 3 years ago

I like to ask why they have a door on their bathroom.

genocidicbunny5• 3 years ago

Anyone who uses that argument, ask them to hand you their phone, unlocked, and a list of passwords for all of their accounts. If you have nothing to hide, why would you have a problem with me poking around in the most intimate aspects of your life?

iknowstuff3• 3 years ago

This doesn't really convince them. To them, a friend might be someone they want to hide things from, but they won’t care about some unknown government entity having access.

Vogtinator• 3 years ago

Not fully comparable because passwords usually give you more than just read access.

dec0dedab0de• 3 years ago

The really crazy part is that I have multiple friends and family that would turn over their info to me with no questions asked.

adventured• 3 years ago

Nothing to hide is a premise based on most people being terrified of confrontation. It's an intentional staging to force confrontation or capitulation.

When people say they have nothing to hide, in most cases what they're actually saying is that they're afraid of the confrontation implicit in the opposite response (I'm going to forcefully argue for a right to privacy). They're telling you that they're a coward.

corsac• 3 years ago

The more I think about this, the more it rings true. Implicit in the phrase "I have nothing to hide" is an assumption that everything is open to inspection by default, and concealment is deviance. In most situations, nobody assumes anything close to that. When they do, they're taking a supine position, like an animal submissively exposing its belly.

colordrops• 3 years ago

Well also the 4th amendment.

wintogreen742• 3 years ago

Even framing it as "nothing to hide" implies that hiding is the exception. Shouldn't it be the default?

waboremo2• 3 years ago

Yes, even those who overshare on social media still are operating (and benefitting) from privacy as a default.

BirAdam• 3 years ago

For a society to work properly, yes. If we have zero rules around what a government can or cannot do, can or cannot have access to, and so on we will have created a moral hazard that will be grossly abused.

sschueller• 3 years ago

Was there a black mirror episode regarding that phrase? If not I think they missed an opportunity to show people that everyone has something to hide.

wyldfire• 3 years ago

I remember an episode starring Toby Kebbell that had his character submitting to authorities to review his sense-perspective audiovisual recordings.

waboremo2• 3 years ago

Kind of (if you mean the Shut Up and Dance one), in classic black mirror fashion the episode is littered with twists that make it difficult for people to really grasp the point and instead can argue against it. In the episode the main character gets infected with malware (the tool he wanted is actually a sting operation), but because of what he's being blackmailed about a lot of people feel that's justified.

MikeDelta• 3 years ago

Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different concepts.

StingyJelly• 3 years ago

Exactly! The best way someone put it - right to choose what to share and who to share it with.

sroussey2• 3 years ago

If you have nothing to hide, then publish it all for the world to see.

louloulou2• 3 years ago

"Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world."

-- excerpt from A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, Eric Hughes, March 9, 1993

teaearlgraycold• 3 years ago

There’s a reason we don’t mandate government cameras inside our homes. No one wants that. But in a world where everyone needs a computer, we shouldn’t take advantage of that obligation by turning our computers into surveillance devices.

hanniabu4• 3 years ago

Reminder that the same applies to use of crypto. Just because it's use for some illegal activity (it's actually less % than fiat), doesn't mean it should be made illegal as I've seen some comments here advocating for in the past.

BLKNSLVR5• 3 years ago

Privacy is wearing clothes.

You should almost never be forced to nude up.

nullc• 3 years ago

even if they didn't currently abuse their power or abused it only an "acceptable" degree, we're never more than one election away or even just one hiring decision away from someone who would do much worse.

The right protection is for the power to not exist.

Bran_son• 3 years ago

A better example are people that do have something to hide - whistleblowers, union organizers, political activists, journalists, upstart politicians... How does the nature of their work change, if the current government in power knows all their secrets, and abuses or selectively leaks/prosecutes them? And does that change society for the better, or for the worse?

Zamicol• 3 years ago

Those seeking to abuse power employ the nothing to hide fallacy.

BLKNSLVR5• 3 years ago

I think "why do you have the right to know?" is a decent answer.

"What level of trust do you think you've earned?"

"What do you want to do with all this information?"

"How will this make things better?'

"Don't you have more important things to spend time and money on?"

"Is this really the best thing the government should be working on right now?"

"How does this help any of society's ills?"

"Will taxes need to be increased to manage, store, and analyse the mountains of information that will be created?"

"How long will you store messages between me and my daughter about her contemplating suicide, and will those messages prevent her from getting a government job later in life?"

"Does the storing of all this data come with a responsibility to make it accessible to defend people who have been accused of a crime?"

"My wife works in law enforcement, will she have access to this trove of data?"

"Will there be a process to remove data from this trove that may be libelous or cause undue harm to an individual or company?"

"Is the government responsible for the complete chain of access to this data, or are there private companies involved that have to be trusted not to sneak a peek?"

"What specific issue, currently facing today's society, does this solve?"

BizarroLand2• 3 years ago

"IT PROTECTS THE CHILDREN!" they'll scream, while using it to take more power away from society and concentrate it into their own hands.

Surveillance isn't some harmless thing, because you can tell a million lies with a drop of the truth in them for any reason you want.

Imagine you get established in life and decide to run for local politics only to have the fact that you've gone to Vegas 4 times in your life somehow turned into a completely untrue "drug use and prostitution" scandal that destroys your credibility and political career before it even started.

Imagine having your grandkids' college scholarships revoked because you ran an incredibly unprofitable and short lived onlyfans for 3 months in your late teens.

Maybe the results won't be as overt as this. Maybe it will be worse.

Either way, it is invasive and gives complete strangers power over your future and your children's future that they simply should not have and have no reason to ever have.

It's morally repugnant and abhorrent to any person who takes the time to think not of what information will be collected but of what that information will be used for and by whom.

The children of the people who as of today are still talking about how great trump is and how he "brought peace to the middle east" and how "evil demoncrats are running a global cabal to turn humans into monkeys" are the people who at best will be the parents and friends and neighbors of the people who will have finely grained and exacting data of everything you have done from well before the day of the passing of a bill like this.

This bill would make America the equivalent of living in an overly nosy HOA city everywhere for everyone. The people who fit in and don't make waves will get the 1950's nuclear family treatment, and those that don't will get the April 26, 1986 Pripyat nuclear treatment.

kelnos5• 3 years ago

I also think a decent strategy is to start asking for all sorts of specific private information, like their social security number, bank account numbers, and passwords. Ask them to make a copy of their keys so you can enter their house any time you want and watch what they're doing, go through their things, etc. Tell them that you want to put up cameras in their bedroom and bathroom that stream to the internet 24/7.

Keep escalating until they balk. Once that happens: "oh, so you do value your privacy?"

If they actually do share this sort of info with you, give you copies of their keys, and let you put up cameras in their house, it's probably safe to say that they are part of a vanishingly small minority, and you really don't need to care about their views on privacy. (Hopefully this assertion ages well years from now.)

clnq3• 3 years ago

To my mind, another problem is the one-sidedness of this effort. Why is someone privileged to scan my data but I can’t write a scanner and parse theirs? There seems to be a fundamental injustice here.

Completely ignoring privacy as a concept for a moment, a fair trade should be like for like, value for value.

akomtu• 3 years ago

Imho, sponsors of this bill want to collect dossiers and use them to blackmail opponents in the future. For example, you want to do something unpopular and a noisy council member opposes your plan. You reach to the "official and confidential" box, find there a personal file on that politician, conveniently created by the AI-scanner, share your discoveries with him and suddenly he changes his mind.

gloria_mundi• 3 years ago

That's just how government works in general though. [0]

"Why is someone privileged to arrest me but I can't keep them locked up in my house?"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

teddyh• 3 years ago

Bruce Schneier put it quite succinctly in his article The Eternal Value of Privacy (from 2006):

Some clever answers: “If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these – as right as they are – is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

— https://www.wired.com/2006/05/the-eternal-value-of-privacy/

sirmarksalot• 3 years ago

I think this is a straw man. I don't think any politician would ever suggest such a thing at face value unless couched in some other argument. For example, after 9/11 a politician would have said, "I respect your need for privacy, but we live in extraordinary times, and we need to temporarily lift the restrictions on our agencies to effectively combat an imminent threat."

The real argument being made isn't that we should give all our secrets to the government, but that we should trust that the government will comply with our 4th Amendment protections and avoid gathering this data without a valid warrant issued by an impartial judge. If you're reading this, I'm guessing that like me, you don't believe a word of that. But that's the argument that's being made, and that's what needs to be debunked loudly and publicly.

autoexec5• 3 years ago

I think the US government has debunked that for us, repeatedly and thoroughly. If this is really their argument they've already lost.

HaZeust• 3 years ago

“Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” - Snowden

citruscomputing2• 3 years ago

Completely agree. Also a reminder that there are things to be scared of, today. People getting abortions in states where it's illegal need their communications to be safe and secure. The current forced medical detransition of adults in Montana means people are going to need to rely on underground distribution networks for their medication, starting in a few weeks. Their communications need to be secure from government spying as well. The police are not your friend. It is no longer necessary to talk about theoretical futures or nebulous harms to privacy, the unjust laws are already here (& should be ignored, fought, frustrated, or routed around, as necessary). We do not need a cop on our phones.

citruscomputing2• 3 years ago

s/Montana/Missouri/

I'm very tired

trinsic27• 3 years ago

I think all of these injustices are be created to further gaps between classes of people to lay the groundwork for a future paradigm shift towards totalitarianism. Is the same thing we do in other countries to spread the so called democracy under the guise of a dictatorship.

froggychairs• 3 years ago

I’ve found that reminding folks who use the “you have nothing to hide" argument often quickly change their mind if you just remind them the political party they don’t like could use it against them

This worked surprisingly well and without fail for the conservative side of my family. The instant I reminded them who was president at the time (Obama) all of them changed their mind

I don’t love this strategy. It leans into fear mongering a bit much, but if none of the other very helpful rhetorical techniques folks have shared here don’t work. This one has some staying power.

nullsense2• 3 years ago

Look at human history. We absolutely ought to fear power and those who wield it.

triska• 3 years ago

Also, the statement is itself wrong already at face value in many situations, for example if someone has a credit card or runs an online shop and is contractually required to hide something. For instance, quoting from https://usa.visa.com/legal/checkout/terms-of-service.html:

"You are responsible for protecting the confidentiality of your username and password(s), if any. In addition, if you choose to be remembered on your device or browser, or link your use of the Visa Solution with a digital wallet, on one or more device(s), you are responsible for protecting the safety of and access to such device(s). It is important that you do so since we are not responsible for any losses you incur as a result of unauthorized use of your Eligible Card and, depending on the circumstances, your Issuer may hold you responsible for unauthorized use of your Eligible Card account."

Another example for mandatory secrecy are confidentiality requirements imposed by professional obligations, such as for lawyers and physicians, in order to ensure fair trials, and for the protection of human dignity.

Heston• 3 years ago

What a ridiculous argument. That's like saying the police shouldnt have weapons to defend themselves with because there's a history of police killing innocent people.

No, the real answer here is to address the actual corruption to expose and remove it.

Not to mention, if you have nothing to hide, how can someone abuse their power to use it against you?

These bills are put in place because they save lives, especially vulnerable children.

Nasrudith• 3 years ago

Personally I favor a confrontational retort: "No, you never get to decide that. The inquisitor does." Revolutions are a messy example which demonstrate what happens when the mandatory becomes forbidden without ex-post-facto restrictions. There is a reason many people get the hell out of dodge even after the fighting stops.

coldtea5• 3 years ago

A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power

Also because we have a lot to hide that we should be able to. Our intimate pictures with our partners, our chats with friends (and gossip), our business plans, our in-progress work and ideas, yet to be filled patents, password and account credentials, and lots more.

ajyotirmay• 3 years ago

Also, "you have nothing to hide" is so wrong, that people fail to understand that privacy isn't about hiding your private life, but having the power to sharing those details with consent and when you're comfortable sharing them. Just because you don't have nothing to hide, doesn't mean anyone can walk in your private life and peek into all corners.

And as you mentioned, power will be abused. Unchecked power will be abused unchecked. This is ethically, morally and humanely wrong.

There's so much wrong with this bill and the thought behind it. It should never see the day of light.

LocalH4• 3 years ago

I'm tired of these cutesy backronyms that they try to come up with to influence the public's perception of a law. "EARN IT"? What the fuck? It should be outright illegal to pass laws whose acronyms spell words.

But, of course, that'll never happen, because who would willingly give up such a juicy tool for gaming the system?

sgjohnson7• 3 years ago

Remember the PATRIOT Act?

LocalH4• 3 years ago

Yep. Or the "USA PATRIOT" Act, as it's full name spells. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". But by calling it "patriot", it implies that you're not a patriot if you don't support it.

Never mind that modern American "patriotism" isn't anything of the sort, but is much closer to nationalism.

monksy2• 3 years ago

You mean the precursor to the RESTRICT/S686 act? [That's still going on.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686 ]

idiotsecant2• 3 years ago

OK, monkey paw wish granted.

Laws may now only be passed and officially discussed using their globally unique identifier like SB-47226

When politicians advocate for or against these laws in the public sphere they will still make up catchy names to make them stick in peoples heads.

Now you still get misleading names but its twice as hard to understand what bill is what.

sgjohnson7• 3 years ago

Laws may now only be passed and officially discussed using their globally unique identifier like SB-47226

This particular globally unique identifier gets reset with every sitting.

"H.R.13293 — 118th Congress" would be a globally unique one. Unless it conflicts with some of the state legislatures.

cubefox• 3 years ago

In Germany laws get boring descriptive names without any silly acronyms. E.g. the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, the "network enforcement act", which forces social networking sites to proactively delete illegal content without a court order. They didn't choose an Orwellian euphemism. I assume Americans could do the same.

gessha• 3 years ago

Naming things is incredibly powerful aspect of human behavior. It can be used for good and evil and I don’t see a point in banning them. Media and politicians can still give unofficial names to bills when talking about them so such a ban would do nothing.

jimbob452• 3 years ago

Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAWLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. HASSAN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. WARNER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. KENNEDY

Article understated things by calling it a "group" of senators. That's a lot of senators already willing to get this thing off the ground.

a_e_k• 3 years ago

That's 20. 1/5 of all senators.

wudangmonk• 3 years ago

They need to pass a 'public official' bill that ties any and all public official records to whatever is expected of the general population, no exceptions.

This is the only true way to stop these type of bills.

AnimalMuppet2• 3 years ago

Not just public records. Public officials should be on Medicare. Their retirement should be Social Security. Their staff should be subject to the same employment rules that apply to everyone else. And so on.

hellojesus7• 3 years ago

But Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.

vegetablepotpie• 3 years ago

4th amendment text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAWLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. HASSAN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. WARNER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. KENNEDY.

dehrmann• 3 years ago

FEINSTEIN

Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.

tomschlick• 3 years ago

Why do Californians keep re-electing her?

bluefirebrand• 3 years ago

or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data

I know we shouldn't assume malice when incompetence explains things, but I genuinely do think a lot of people who run governments do actually think they should not be affected by the same rules they want to apply to everyone else.

HeckFeck2• 3 years ago

In the UK, we will have ministers say 'We need to force the evil big tech companies to break encryption so terrorists and perverts can be caught' and the next week they'll warn of the dangers of Russia hacking into vital infrastructure, and the urgent need for strong cybersecurity strategies.

A bewildering and curious lot our leaders are.

coldpie2• 3 years ago

Her brain is pea soup. I'm pretty sure she is not capable of connecting things.

anigbrowl7• 3 years ago

On the plus side, she's incapable of voting at the moment.

Eumenes• 3 years ago

She's mentally incompetent at this stage and should step down. Its obvious she's just a puppet.

dsfyu404ed2• 3 years ago

This shouldn't be surprising. Even before she was old and "of questionable judgement" she was voting for and sponsoring stuff like this. Go back to the war on drugs era and you can find sound bytes of her advocating for all sorts of absurd stuff. And by "absurd" I don't mean "didn't age well but was the party line". I'm talking about stuff that violates rights in excess of what the average party politician was pushing for.

That said, even if you strike her name from the list you know this is bad because it's a bunch of bipartisan long time congresspeople who are sponsoring this bill. When the careerists of the swamp get together to do something we the people always lose.

borski10• 3 years ago

I met her at an SVLG dinner and had a discussion about encryption; it became instantly clear she doesn’t know what a computer is past that it is a TV that takes input, and that encryption is just “evil people wanting to do evil things.”

There was no reasoning with her either, frankly because she is well-aged, and thus thinks herself “wise” with very little left to learn.

It was honestly infuriating.

[edit] In case anyone thinks I’m exaggerating, I promise I’m not. I went back to look at my texts to my now-wife after that meeting, and I was livid and extremely disappointed. She was at a table of, at the time, a dozen or so cybersecurity experts from industry and academia, and instead of listening to (or rather, hearing) what they had to say, she pushed forward an agenda of “trying to stop evil” while “protecting the children” and “thanking us for our concerns,” all while explaining that she understands encryption and knows how important it is, but that it’s more important for the military to have it and normal people don’t really need it as much. After all, it’s not like we don’t talk to other people in coffee shops where people can overhear and stuff.

Ugh.

lokar• 3 years ago

She has always been a militarist

matheusmoreira2• 3 years ago

Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy.

Good. I hope they start spying on her just for kicks. People who would deny us our privacy should be leading by example.

monksy2• 3 years ago

My senator Duckworth is going to respond back with a from letter stating "OMG THE CHILDREN". (Just like she did for the first Earn act concern I sent).

Might as well add her name on there too.

anigbrowl7• 3 years ago

And it'll keep being persuasive to her voters until people come up with a meaningful counter-proposal that does a better job of addressing child safety online while also protecting privacy.

shitlord• 3 years ago

Mine is a co-sponsor (Rubio) and he will say the same thing. People hate pedos more than they care about their own privacy or oppose their political enemies.

KRAKRISMOTT• 3 years ago

So much for being a SF senator

tastyfreeze• 3 years ago

Alaska nearly voted swamp creature Murkowski out in the last midterm.

rnk7• 3 years ago

Murkowski is a non-maga republican. If she was out you'd get a maga supporter in all likelihood.

SimianSci• 3 years ago

It's important to point out that many of these senators are also members of the Intelligence committee and are receiving regular reports from intelligence agencies as part of their senatorial duties. It is logical to think that these agencies are using these briefings to lobby senators for changes that directly impact their performance.

It's highly unlikely this comes from a place of malice, but rather is a second order effect of organizational incentives to do better work.

Regardless, it's important for citizens to fight back against this pressure as it can be conceived as a potentially never-ending erosion of human rights.

x86x874• 3 years ago

Hahahahaha

Of course. Of course Cruz and Hawley are actually angels that are a victim of circumstances. Collins? Fucking immaculate.

I don't know how many times we have to "fight back" when they come uo with this BS. They should just cut it out and serve the people that elected them.

PS: Mandatory "Think about the children!"

switch007• 3 years ago

It’s almost like they intentionally trolled future generations by mixing sentences that sound like iron clad protections with weasel words like “unreasonable” which anybody could foresee as being debated ad infinitum for centuries

adamsb6• 3 years ago

Naturally this bill designed to strip our privacy is named after the song from Fifty Shades of Grey.

TedDoesntTalk2• 3 years ago

Here’s the link to send an email to your local representative. It’s a pre-filled form and takes less than 60 seconds to complete:

https://act.eff.org/action/the-earn-it-act-is-back-seeking-t...

pksebben5• 3 years ago

everyone with an opinion in this thread ought to do this. It really doesn't take any time at all.

colinsane6• 3 years ago

some countries have a public policy of “don’t negotiate with terrorists”. it’s so tempting for me to adopt the same policy in my own life. if a burglar showed up at my door demanding entry, i wouldn’t debate them about why it’s morally preferable that they don’t enter against my will. but when it’s some politician demanding entry, suddenly everyone thinks i ought to engage in that debate.

no. better to dispel the myth: those who rule without consent are illegitimate rulers. the problem isn’t us failing to persuade such rulers. it’s us failing to reject such rulers.

noelsusman2• 3 years ago

I find myself consistently disappointed when reading blog posts like this. I generally agree with the principles that the EFF advocates for, but it's hard to see this post as anything other than rage-bait. I can't trust it to be an accurate source of information on what this bill actually does.

For example, I've repeatedly seen claims that this bill would effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption, but the bill explicitly protects companies that offer encryption from liability.

None of the following actions or circumstances shall serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider of an interactive computer service for a claim or charge described in that paragraph:
(i) The provider utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.
(ii) The provider does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication.
(iii) The provider 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"

When I look to the EFF for an explanation about why this language isn't sufficient, I get this:

The bill clearly leaves room to impose forms of "client-side scanning"

Going back to the bill, the phrase "client-side scanning" doesn't appear anywhere in the text despite the EFF implying that they're quoting from the bill. If they're not quoting from the bill then what exactly are they quoting from? This is the kind of thing that makes me unable to trust them to be accurate, which makes posts like this effectively useless to me since I feel the need to independently verify all of their claims.

borski10• 3 years ago

Client side scanning came out of the discussion around this bill the last time it was proposed. That it isn’t in this bill doesn’t mean it isn’t in politicians’ heads, and if this gets passed there is then significant precedent for extending it, as a small extension doesn’t seem as big as a full-scale government invasion of citizens’ privacy (i.e. this bill).

noelsusman2• 3 years ago

I don't believe the transition from "set up a commission to recommend best practices" to "mandate regular scans of everyone's phones and report the results to law enforcement" would be viewed as a small extension.

SoylentYellow• 3 years ago

Perhaps the unspoken argument is that client-side scanning will be made into a best practice, and websites and apps that don't implement it will be exposed to liability.

HDThoreaun2• 3 years ago

Rage bait is by far the EFFs most powerful tool. Of course they're going to reach for it first.

tzs• 3 years ago

The EFF seems to be going the way of many advocacy groups, where as time goes by their positions on the things they advocate for become less nuanced and they stop taking into consideration how those things fit into the big picture.

An example of this is the National Rifle Association (NRA). They used to think that carrying guns around in public should be restricted and require licensing, and that dealers should need to be licensed, and that some kinds of guns should be restricted.

For the EFF the thing that made me think that they are going down that road was during the controversy over Apple's plans to scan for CSAM. Apple had actually announced two things: (1) scanning on-device for CSAM in material about to be uploaded to iCloud, and (2) scanning on-device of devices with parental controls enabled to block messages that contained content that might be harmful to children.

Most of the discussion was about #1, both from the EFF and from everybody else. #2 was much less discussed.

Here's how #2 worked in the case where you have a child who is 13 or older with a phone on your family plan and you have enabled scanning.

1. I send your kid pictures of my dick.

2. The software temporarily blocks that and gives your child a modal dialog telling them it blocked something because their parents think it might be harmful, and asking the child if they want to go ahead and view the material.

3. If the child says no the material remains blocked and nothing else happens.

4. If the child says yes my dick picture is unblocked and nothing else happens.

If your child is under 13, here is how it goes:

1-3: same as the 13 and above case.

4. If the child says yes they are given another modal asking of they are sure and reiterating that their parents think the material may be harmful, and telling them if they do elect to view it their parents will be notified. They are again asked if they want to proceed to view it or not.

5. If the child says no, the material remains blocked and nothing else happens.

6. If the child says yes my dick picture is unblocked, and the parents are notified.

The EFF objected to this, on the grounds that #6 violates my privacy since I sent my dick pictures to your kid, not you, and did not consent to you getting access.

WTF? It used to be that a big argument from privacy groups against server-side scanning to protect children is that children shouldn't be getting to the bad parts of the net in the first place, and keeping the kids away was something the parents should take care of with things like time restrictions and parental control software.

ocdtrekkie3• 3 years ago

This. The EFF used to be a force for good, but they are now free speech and privacy extremists backed principally by a tech industry that simply doesn't want to be liable for their negative impact on society.

The EFF will not ever support a regulation on big tech behavior.

dmvdoug• 3 years ago

So, I think the bigger issue is that those things may not serve as an independent basis for liability. But (B) then says that those things may be considered as evidence if they’re otherwise admissible (under the Federal Rules). In other words, encryption by itself does not expose them to liability, but those who might get sued could have encryption used against them as evidence that they “knowingly” possessed, transmitted, etc. CSAM. If robust encryption makes it more difficult to identify or stop CSAM trafficking, and a service refuses to compromise its encryption, that could be used as evidence against them.

That’s the fear, anyway.

throwaway59593• 3 years ago

They only have to pass it once but we have to fight it forever. This will be like the Patriot Act, it’ll never go away.

barbariangrunge• 3 years ago

Gentle reminder: you can donate to the EFF to help them fight bills like this!

EGreg• 3 years ago

And this time they’ll probably get it passed. Seeing as what they have already done in Europe and California and Utah and…

There is something We the People can do, as an industry, it is described at the bottom of this link. First it describes the massive extent of the problem, then links to the solution:

https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...

If you are thinking “why should I bother clicking on that random link?” It starts out by linking to all the stuff the US government has already done, including defeating the EFF’s challenges recently in court — that’s defeating the same guys who published this new piece.

anigbrowl7• 3 years ago

As I've said before, complaining about privacy will only take you so far because the issues are too abstract for many people. While right-wing attacks on abortion and contraception may seem irrelevant to tech issues, they also attack the legal basis for privacy, which is not explicitly written into the US constitution. It'd be wise to focus a little less on individual bills and a little more on the broader strategic picture.

That should include a privacy-friendly counter-proposal for dealing with the trade in CSAM, which is a real problem no matter how much the tech community tries to wish it away by saying 'it's already illegal'. It's disingenuous to look at one issue and say 'scope creep, this will threaten our freedoms' while looking at another issue and saying 'we already passed a law, therefore the problem doesn't exist'.

JPws_Prntr_Fngr3• 3 years ago

By accepting their framing of "CSAM vs personal privacy" as the moral conundrum, you have already lost. You will be forced to compromise over and over, trading a little liberty for a little security, "for the children."

As if the "intelligence community" that ran Jeffrey Epstein is going to use their shiny new surveillance powers to eradicate pedophilia.

anigbrowl7• 3 years ago

That's wrong. CSAM is a problem, the tech industry has failed to get to grips with how easily it facilitates CSAM sharing (not dissimilar to piracy, though I support the latter), and until the tech industry can point to a credible CSAM mitigation policy proposal it will keep looping back to the CSAM-v-privacy framing.

Skip the rhetorical flourishes and come up with a proposal that addresses the issue. If you refuse to do so, then you can't complain about privacy-eradicating opponents offering their mediocre or bad policies. Refusing to acknowledge an issue exists is an automatic loser.

eagleinparadise• 3 years ago

Surely someone here will be encouraged to run for office

rolph• 3 years ago

this has been done before:

https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/salem-witch-...

the88doctor2• 3 years ago

That's a scarily good comparison. Children need to be protected, but it feels like there is a steady erosion of basic rights to privacy, free speech, free expression, and free choice that are being justified with "whatever it takes to save a child".

gavinhoward• 3 years ago

Here is a link to send to politicians: https://everyoneneedsencryption.gavinhoward.com/ .

Feedback welcome. I want it as short and as punchy as possible.

user3939382• 3 years ago

Unless and until the security state and neocon/neolib corporatist* power complex is ripped out of our government this will never stop and the People will lose this war.

It's much harder to rescind a law than pass it, which means they only have to win once and we have to win every time. We are doomed by this asymmetry.

anaganisk• 3 years ago

I found the comments under the TikTok ban thread the other day and asked, Why are you so concerned about China, which can do nothing, while other apps collect the data in the country you are in has the actual power to jail you because, you support abortion or LGBTQ. The mental gymnastics were, US has a due process of law and China is an authoritarian dictatorship, while they still live in the US and China can't extradite them. People constantly fail to realize, the views change, what's legal today could be illegal tomorrow, and you will absolutely be profiled as a risk.

Even if they can't prove you are guilty, the absolute nightmare of going through the due process of law and being tagged as a risk is something to think about and take it seriously. The concern must not be if the app is based on what country, it must be why does this app want to know so much about me, or why does the govt need to know my every opinion.

US trusted Dick Cheney's words and we all know what happened.

pfoof• 3 years ago

If so, then every member of parliament, senator, judge, minister and other public officers should upload all their data and conversations for the public to see and regularly update it. After all it's for the "good of the society" right?

kylehotchkiss• 3 years ago

The bill also makes specific allowances to allow the use of encryption to constitute evidence in court against service providers.

So if you enable iCloud advanced protection, that is "evidence". We really really need a younger congress.

lysozyme• 3 years ago

I’m reminded by a speech by Frederick Douglass [1] that

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. (Emphasis mine)

1. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-fred...

devindotcom• 3 years ago

Douglass was such a mind. I need to actually read through his various memoirs and essays/correspondence.

celtoid• 3 years ago

Marcus Raskin's 1976 paper "Democracy Versus the National Security State" [0] is a good backgrounder on how we've gotten to this state of affairs. If politicians want to continue with their careers in Congress, they'll either serve the national security state or have to pretend to their constituents that it doesn't exist.

"The national security state emerges from war, from fear of revolution and change, from the economic instability of capitalism, and from nuclear weapons and military technology.It has been the actualizing mechanism of ruling elites to implement their imperial schemes and misplaced ideals. In practical terms its emergence is linked to the rise of a bureaucracy that administered things and people in interchangeable fashion without concern for ends or assumptions. This state formation matured during a period in which the office of the President be- came supremely powerful as a broker and legitimating instrument of national security activity."

"...The society is at a turning point. And in this regard so is the legal profession. Either we will surrender representative democracy, embracing instead different forms of corporate fascism and bureaucratic control (military, police, and social) which cannot be halted through citizen action and democratic pro- cesses, or we (including the legal profession) will begin the difficult task of dismantling the national security apparatus. It does not seem likely to me that those who struggled in the sixties to develop a new meaning of democracy will settle for bureaucratic or corporate fascism. And those who are neutral on the question will be less likely to acquiesce in fascist or bonapartist deformations once it is clear that they are inefficient, and that they provide only insecurity, unemployment, imperial wars, a deepening arms race, and a pro- cess of repressive exclusion which reduces politics to an empty game."

[0] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol40/iss3/7/

Plain text at:

https://archive.org/stream/democracy-versus-the-national-sec...

Madmallard2• 3 years ago

How does this stuff keep happening? Like no one wants it in the public why is it still coming up?

ocdtrekkie3• 3 years ago

I'm in the public and I want this bill. My senator is one of the sponsors and I'm happy to see it. I think a large portion of society is now following enough echo chambers that they believe that nobody opposes their position, when usually... it's a pretty big chunk of society, actually, that they just never interact with or talk to.

galoisscobi• 3 years ago

I really appreciate that EFF has a convenient way to reach out to reps. If you’re a US citizen and reading this thread, I highly recommend using EFF’s tool to write to your reps. They have a pre written message and it takes 30 seconds to send it out.

vlovich123• 3 years ago

Re “If you have nothing to hide” arguments. Pointing out abuses is one thing.

I say we go the other way. All travel by government employees/officials is available to the public (can be historical to avoid security issues). Complete financial transparency by all government officials/senior staff and their family members enforced at the bank level - you must list all your accounts, a cumulative amount of assets, list of specific assets >10k in value. The financial institution is responsible for providing that directly to the IRS which then removed account numbers, institution names, round values to the nearest N to avoid identity theft, etc.

The entire political apparatus in the US seems to shy away from any real transparency yet want to foist it on everyone else not in power. That’s not really living your values.

noisy_boy• 3 years ago

Make them share their all their phone communications; that's what this bill amounts to anyway.

motohagiography• 3 years ago

If I were American, I might respond to their, "Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies" Act, with the "Mitigating Overreach Limiting Obstruction Nullifying Lamentability And Benefiting Everyone" Act.

If by EARN IT, they mean Americans should earn their freedom - which this government is using its own crimes[1] as a pretext for taking from them - that seems really just unwise.

[1] EDKH

sroussey2• 3 years ago

Soon they will ask to scan your car computer so they can ticket you for speeding.

bippihippi1• 3 years ago

what can we do?

this is already happening in a lot of cases, we need to make sure this legal grey zone is closed and ruled in favor of privacy. as government powers are derived from the people, and I don't have any right to walk into your house and ask for your mail, the government has no right to invade our privacy. there are better ways to keep us safe. lots of private software does this already and has lots of problems. I see no reason to assume the government would be any better. I could maybe get behind less privacy for government programs interfacing with the American public and for corporations

abvdasker• 3 years ago

To me what's so maddening about these attacks on Internet privacy is that they're extremely unpopular with actual voters across the political spectrum (it's just that awareness of these measures is very low). No politician would ever dare to campaign on a policy like this because nobody wants it. These persistent attempts to pass anti-privacy measures really highlight the corruption of American "democracy" given that there is zero popular mandate to do this but politicians keep trying anyway.

ocdtrekkie3• 3 years ago

This is false. There's significant support across the political spectrum for curtailing Section 230, which is why EARN IT has bipartisan cosponsors.

Big tech companies, employees of said companies, and their lobbyists and marketing angles, of course, are loudly against it, which is why you will see less support for it here on HN.

Madmallard2• 3 years ago

The fundamental instinctive understanding that everyone has socially as to why gossip is bad is why privacy is important.

anticensor• 3 years ago

FTFY: The fundamental instinctive understanding that everyone has socially as to why certain types of gossip are bad is why privacy on those respects is important.

riazrizvi• 3 years ago

I think it is far more likely that the main impetus for this comes from those who can make the most money from it. Corporations and organizations who seek economic and political intelligence. Identifying employees who are considering other employment options, identifying employees who are considering joining unions, identifying employees political leaning, so that undesirables can be fired upfront and black balled.

mrawesome8• 3 years ago

The EARN IT Act threatens the privacy of all internet users by allowing for suspicionless scans of online messages, photos, and hosted files.

This law creates an unelected government commission stacked with law enforcement personnel that can dictate "best practices" for internet websites and apps.

The EARN IT Act removes legal protections for users and website owners and allows state legislatures to encourage civil lawsuits and prosecutions against those who don’t follow the government’s “best practices.”

Websites and apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect user privacy will be pressured to remove or compromise the security of their services or face prosecutions and lawsuits.

This law falsely assumes that all internet users should be under suspicion for child abuse, treating us all like we're in a permanent criminal lineup.

The available evidence shows that scanning software designed to detect Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) is far from perfect and often results in false accusations.

The EARN IT Act threatens to export these false accusations to vulnerable communities around the world, where they can be wielded by police forces with even less accountability than those in the United States.

The EARN IT Act leaves room for client-side scanning, violating user privacy by sending data to law enforcement straight from user devices.

Everyone has a right to privacy, even if they have nothing to hide. Just like we close the door when we use the bathroom, we should be able to keep our online conversations and information private. It is a fundamental right that allows individuals to have control over their personal information and to be free from unwarranted surveillance. Without privacy, people can be vulnerable to all sorts of abuse, including identity theft, stalking, and harassment.

The act then removes nearly 30-year-old legal protections for users and website owners. If EARN IT passes, we’re likely to see state lawmakers step in and mandate scanning of messages and other files.

The proposed law has been defeated twice before but needs digital rights supporters to speak up and stop it from passing again. We need to support a free, secure, and private internet.

wesleyd• 3 years ago

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. But what sort of sad bastard has nothing to hide?

winrid2• 3 years ago

Here's the bill on govscent (with topics extracted by openai, UI is very much still early days...)

https://govscent.org/bill/USA/118s686is

We also have the topics and summaries by section, but I have yet to build the UI for it.

desertraven• 3 years ago

The increasing rate of technological progress worries me sometimes. One upside is the hope that malicious policy just won't be able to keep up with the rate of change.

It seems futile to fight these kinds of things, especially since if something isn't legal, it'll likely get done via some shady method (eg. mass surveillance).

I wonder what an emerging information system would look like where these kinds of policies just wouldn't be relevant. P2P? Turning away from online tech in general?

When the bully comes to the playground, it seems like a good idea to just go play elsewhere.

StanislavPetrov• 3 years ago

Yet another reminder that if you are a US citizen, your safety and your freedom are far more threatened by those in DC than anyone in a foreign country.

mrcode007• 3 years ago

Whenever a bill appears, disappears and reappears there’s a big chance it is a case of a “milker bill” or a “toll booth bill”. Basically go after an industry with money and propose some really inconvenient thing for them and say it will go away if you “donate to my campaign” usually through “lobbying efforts”

Big examples in the past were SOPA act for example

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/politicians-extor...

EDIT: it seems to happen at all levels

https://abc11.com/amp/politics-durham-city-council-extortion...

https://abc30.com/amp/nelson-esparza-charged-extortion-city-...

deafpolygon• 3 years ago

Some days, I would like a law that applies to digital things the same thing we already have protected by the constitution; the Fourth Amendment should apply to our digital stores but it doesn't.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I personally believe "papers, and effects" apply to digital things.

francasso• 3 years ago

Isn't there a way to permanently stop lawmakers from proposing to take away freedoms and rights using terrorism or child abuse as excuses? We can't keep fighting this kind of bullshit every few years.

matheusmoreira2• 3 years ago

Will these people ever stop?

atemerev• 3 years ago

Because most “democratic” countries are not really democratic. Elected representatives can and will act against the interests of the public they represent.

While here in Switzerland we have direct democracy, where such decisions have to be confirmed by national referendums (we have several each year), and most certainly this one would not be approved.

sdfjkl• 3 years ago

Privacy is a human right, LEARN IT.

panny• 3 years ago

I'm willing to wager that client side scanning violates the third amendment of the us constitution.

irrational• 3 years ago

They are going to keep trying until it passes, aren’t they.

Etrnl_President• 3 years ago

Unpopular legal factoid: The right to privacy was overturned with Roe vs. Wade.

samwyse• 3 years ago

Just an reminder: ChatGPT does a great job of rephrasing things to make them unique.

IYasha• 3 years ago

As a non-american (and from far-far-away) I still sympathise with people who stand against it. Because it's fairly clear to me: if it starts there, it spreads everywhere. That's more of a WEF thing.

The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

Related Stories