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.
"...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,""
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[+] [-] LatteLazy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeSmithson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yarrel|5 years ago|reply
"All 50 states will be able to write new Internet rules that online platforms and websites will have to follow,""
[+] [-] theferalrobot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmerl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smartbit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lowmemcpu|5 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] joeblow9999|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjcon|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thephyber|5 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] emidln|5 years ago|reply
No thanks. This is just as open-ended in the downside as before.
[+] [-] blitmap|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jjoonathan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]