Current Events > A wild internet censorship bill appears in the Senate!

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/31/21116788/earn-it-act-section-230-lindsey-graham-draft-bill-encryption

Graham uses, "won't anyone think of the children"! It's super effective.

The proposed legislation introduced by a Republican senator would create a committee headed by the Attorney General that would be create rules companies have to follow for finding and removing illegal content involving children. Companies that don't follow these guidelines could face stiff legal and monetary penalties, along with the removal of their Section 230 protection (this prevents companies from being held liable for what users do on their platform). It's speculated Graham intends to use this committee to demand a backdoor to encryption for law enforcement. It could also be used very easily for internet censorship by creating rules for what can and cannot be posted on the internet under the guise of protecting children.

In the real world, all major internet companies actively work with law enforcement to stamp out child abuse, with Google and Microsoft going so far as to scan Google Drive and One Drive, respectively, for child abuse content and sharing any finds with law enforcement. Section 230 already doesn't protect you from enabling federal crimes. And as far as finding criminals who use encryption, the FBI routinely finds, takes over, and shut down illegal porn sites hosted on the dark web. Even if your VPN keeps no logs and you run a truly secure setup, if you do something bad enough, they can absolutely find you.

It's hard to say if this legislation will gain any traction in the Senate or the House given that control of the committee depends on who the AG is, but make no mistake: it's only purpose is censorship of the internet and spying. It will do nothing at all to help children or make the world a better place.

tag

---

What a fucklord.

---

Libertarians will still bow down to him and Mitch

Crono99 posted...

Big government libertarians

As long as the big government comes straight from Donald Trump and his cronies they love it

Another link for those interested:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/congress-must-stop-graham-blumenthal-anti-security-bill

As per usual the govt thinks we're all a bunch of fucking dumbasses to believe this. Sad part is most of us are and that's why we keep letting this shit continue happening without opposition.

---

The good news is I don't see it passing the House. Godawful bill though.

---

Jagr_68 posted...

As per usual the govt thinks we're all a bunch of fucking dumbasses to believe this. Sad part is most of us are and that's why we keep letting this shit continue happening without opposition.

The bill is heavily cloaked in "think of the children language". That deceives plenty of the public (especially if the media runs with it), and it increases the chances of it passing the House even though it shouldn't.

bover_87 posted...

The good news is I don't see it passing the House. Godawful bill though.

Don't be so sure. Bills that claim to help children even if they have nothing to do with children, can be hard to oppose. If Graham has backing in the Senate, they may push that narrative that Democrats are supporting the harm of children and lawlessness. The bill was written by both a Democrat and a Republican, and has already begun circulating in the House.

Graham told tech companies they would impose their will on them within a year if they didn't shape up. This seems a little too soon and a little too grandiose. He may not intend for this to actually pass. It may just be muscle flexing to bring tech companies to the table and soften them up. Republican lawmakers may support Trump publicly, but after the impeachment trial and the hideously stupid defense Trump's team put up, they may be nervous about giving the Executive Branch so much power in an election year. I also don't know how popular Barr is with lawmakers either. And then there is the fact that other Republicans have their own ideas about how to "fix" Section 230, so there may be compeittion in this space.

Tech companies supported FOSTA, which was garbage, because if it was enforced it would make it harder for small time companies to compete. This is way too strict and vague, and could make the people running companies and working at them criminally liable no matter the size. I don't think Google, Apple, or Facebook want a single unelected official to be able to change the rules of the internet on a whim. It would be bad for business.

So there is reason to hope this will die without ever getting a vote, that it will die in the House or Senate with a vote, or that it would be struck down or significantly narrowed by our Supreme Court (it's so bad even Roberts couldn't find a reason not to call it unconstiutional). But the fact that this is even being tried is horrifying.

Lawmakers should volunteer to release all their communications and web history if they want to pass laws like this. They can be the guinea pigs.

Sounds like that same bill from a couple years ago that claimed the same thing and went nowhere

---

cmiller4642 posted...

As long as the big government comes straight from Donald Trump and his cronies they love it

Those arent libertarians no matter what they call themselves.

---

Doesn't even seem constitutional. Aside from free speech concerns(encryption is a type of speech and the supreme court really needs to rule as such to protect it) It doesn't seem very respectful of our rights against unreasonable searches or due process.

Is catching a handful of extra child porn downloaders worth compromising security for hundreds of millions of Americans(and possibly people in other countries using American services) and further increasing the power of the government to control, censor, and spy on us with the power being concentrated in a small commitee and the attorney general with vaguely defined(and thus overly broad) powers with minimal oversight?

---

pikachupwnage posted...

Doesn't even seem constitutional. Aside from free speech concerns(encryption is a type of speech and the supreme court really needs to rule as such to protect it) It doesn't seem very respectful of our rights against unreasonable searches or due process.

Is catching a handful of extra child porn downloaders worth compromising security for hundreds of millions of Americans(and possibly people in other countries using American services) and further increasing the power of the government to control, censor, and spy on us with the power being concentrated in a small commitee and the attorney general with vaguely defined(and thus overly broad) powers with minimal oversight?

Republicans: "what's the downside"

---

Wherethisfeom posted...

Why do republicans like spying on their citizens so much

I think it's because the Republican Party as a whole tries to be tough on crime. The idea is that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you should be fine with the police and government knowing what you are doing without a warrant. Never mind the fact that this is unconstitutional, ignores police corruption, ignores huge failings of our justice system, and is a complete double standard. If you are a Republican lawmaker or official, you deserve protection no matter what you've done. See Roy Moore and Dennis Haster as examples.

It's no an exclusively American problem. Australia's spying legislation doesn't allow it to be used against the government for corruption investigations, and the British version explicitly excludes lawmakers from being spied on. Rules for thee and not for me.