Government surveillance bill moving through Congress

[Pacomia]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/e ... age-online
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020 ... atch-group
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ea ... ech-online

Congress is currently using all the coronavirus news as a way to silently push the EARN it act into law, which would remove end-to-end transmission and allow the government to listen to all of your calls and read all of your messages.

I see this as yet another instance of the government exploiting a case where the news is focused on something else, then doing a power grab while no one is looking.
What do you think?

[Nakena]

Not very surprising that they slide such things through. With bipartisan support.

[Rojava Free State]

When Republicans and Democrats pass a bipartisan law, it's usually horrible.

[Pacomia]

When Republicans and Democrats pass a bipartisan law, it's usually horrible.

Weird how they seem to have no regard for liberty.

[Grinning Dragon]

Thanks, I've already contacted by phone and email to my reps to oppose this bill.

[Nakena]

When Republicans and Democrats pass a bipartisan law, it's usually horrible.

Weird how they seem to have no regard for liberty.

Yeah thats why this whole "muh frees" talk is bs.

[Pacomia]

Thanks, I've already contacted by phone and email to my reps to oppose this bill.

Glad to hear. Public knowledge of bills like this is rarely very high, which is why we should do everything in our power to spread the message to everyone we can.

[Stellar Colonies]

Naturally.

[Pacomia]

Got a new source

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ea ... ech-online

[Gagium]

Got a new source

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ea ... ech-online

Ah yes, "bitcoinmagazine.com"

[Vassenor]

OK, serious question.

Here's the fulltext of the bill in question. What exactly are the parts we're concerned with?

[Rojava Free State]

Weird how they seem to have no regard for liberty.

Yeah thats why this whole "muh frees" talk is bs.

"Land of the free"

[Gagium]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-bill-governments-not-so-secret-plan-scan-every-message-online
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020 ... atch-group
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ea ... ech-online

Congress is currently using all the coronavirus news as a way to silently push the EARN it act into law, which would remove end-to-end transmission and allow the government to listen to all of your calls and read all of your messages.

Just like how the end of that net neutrality bill was supposed to be the end of the internet, amiright?

[The Liberated Territories]

Unsurprising. In times of emergency is when the government expands the most.

[Mizrad]

Possibly stupid question, does anyone have a reliable website that shows how a congressperson voted? Both for this bill and for others? I have a hard time tracking down complete lists online for stuff like this.

[Rojava Free State]

Possibly stupid question, does anyone have a reliable website that shows how a congressperson voted? Both for this bill and for others? I have a hard time tracking down complete lists online for stuff like this.

That's the thing about Congress. They vote behind closed doors on things that will completely affect your existence without a single ounce of your say.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Question: Does doing this during an emergency prove intent to "hide" it, or leave open ot interpretation that it's about the need to track people during an emergency?

London pushed for more surveillance out in the open, with less pressing need for it than a crime-infested country like the USA, and that didn't seem to damage the political reputations of those involved. Why would Americans be any different?

[Galloism]

OK, serious question.

Here's the fulltext of the bill in question. What exactly are the parts we're concerned with?

(a) In General.—Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(6) NO EFFECT ON CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION LAW.—

“(A) LIABILITY OF PROVIDERS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.—Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—

“(i) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, if the conduct underlying the claim—

“(I) constitutes a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of that title; or

“(II) is considered a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of that title by operation of subsection (a)(2) of such section 2255;

“(ii) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of title 18, United States Code; or

“(iii) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law if the conduct underlying the claim—

“(I) would constitute a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of title 18, United States Code; or

“(II) would be considered a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of section 2255 of that title, by operation of subsection (a)(2) of such section 2255.

[Pacomia]

Question: Does doing this during an emergency prove intent to "hide" it, or leave open ot interpretation that it's about the need to track people during an emergency?

London pushed for more surveillance out in the open, with less pressing need for it than a crime-infested country like the USA, and that didn't seem to damage the political reputations of those involved. Why would Americans be any different?

Well, the American culture is one of supporting unabridged liberty, to a further extent than most other nations. We see this as a statist bill that will take away one of our vital freedoms, and we're not too happy about it.

[Vassenor]

OK, serious question.

Here's the fulltext of the bill in question. What exactly are the parts we're concerned with?

(a) In General.—Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(6) NO EFFECT ON CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION LAW.—

“(A) LIABILITY OF PROVIDERS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.—Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—

“(i) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, if the conduct underlying the claim—

“(I) constitutes a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of that title; or

“(II) is considered a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of that title by operation of subsection (a)(2) of such section 2255;

“(ii) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of title 18, United States Code; or

“(iii) any claim in a civil action brought against a provider of an interactive computer service under State law if the conduct underlying the claim—

“(I) would constitute a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of title 18, United States Code; or

“(II) would be considered a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of section 2255 of that title, by operation of subsection (a)(2) of such section 2255.

So now we need to go dig through those bits of the statute books to see what's being changed.

[True Refuge]

So now we need to go dig through those bits of the statute books to see what's being changed.

You say that as if needing to put effort into statutory interpretation is unusual.

Section 230 protects internet content hosts (websites, social media companies, etc.) for being held primarily responsible for user-submitted content.

From the wikipedia page, one google away:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

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.

Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the services providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users. It was also pushed by the tech industry and other experts that language in the proposed CDA making providers responsible for indecent content posted by users that could extend to other types of questionable free speech. After passage of the Telecommunications Act, the CDA was challenged in courts and ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) to be partially unconstitutional, leaving the Section 230 provisions in place. Since then, several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230. Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to remove criminal material such as copyright infringement; more recently, Section 230 was amended by the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act in 2018 to require the removal of material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws.

Passed at a time where Internet use was just starting to expand in both breadth of services and range of consumers in the United States, Section 230 has frequently been referred as a key law that has allowed the Internet to flourish, often referred to as "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet".

Compromising s 230's protections also compromises freedom of speech on the internet, and will place huge burdens on content hosts to scan absolutely everything posted on their website (which is unfeasible except with inaccurate algorithm lacking nuance or understanding of context or irony).

[James_xenoland]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-bill-governments-not-so-secret-plan-scan-every-message-online
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020 ... atch-group
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ea ... ech-online

Congress is currently using all the coronavirus news as a way to silently push the EARN it act into law, which would remove end-to-end transmission and allow the government to listen to all of your calls and read all of your messages.

I see this as yet another instance of the government exploiting a case where the news is focused on something else, then doing a power grab while no one is looking.
What do you think?

Not just that, even more worrying is that it basically doesn't just give media/social media/websites a reason to crackdown on speech (even person to person) but pretty much demands that they do! It is also literally a ban on end-to-end encryption/encryption without actually banning it!

Worst and most dangerous of all.. It uses the "won't somebody please think of the children" fallacy for it's reasoning. Meaning no chance of ever getting people to stand up publicly once/if the narrative really gets going.

This shit has to be stopped.

https://reason.com/2020/03/18/the-earn- ... new-fosta/

[Rojava Free State]

Question: Does doing this during an emergency prove intent to "hide" it, or leave open ot interpretation that it's about the need to track people during an emergency?

London pushed for more surveillance out in the open, with less pressing need for it than a crime-infested country like the USA, and that didn't seem to damage the political reputations of those involved. Why would Americans be any different?

Well, the American culture is one of supporting unabridged liberty, to a further extent than most other nations. We see this as a statist bill that will take away one of our vital freedoms, and we're not too happy about it.

We haven't lived in a free country for a long time, if ever at all. Americans think they live in a free nation despite being the same country the DAPL incident happened in.

[New Bremerton]

Any U.S. bill targeting the internet is likely to have a global impact since most of the major websites we browse are based in the United States. I guess this applies to EU regulations too, I guess, although Britain's departure from the EU may mitigate against it somewhat. You fuck with the internet, you fuck with me.

[Ethel mermania]

Blumenthal supporting it makes sense, he wants to stop people from talking about his lying about serving in vietnam. The piece of shit.