Terrible, Dangerous EARN IT Act Set To Move Forward In The Senate; Attack On Both Encryption And Free Speech Online
from the bad,-no,-bad,-stop-it dept
The attacks never stop. After rumors last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee has officially put the EARN IT Act onto the schedule for this week, though many expect that it will get held over and marked up next week on July 2nd, which, conveniently, is a neat time to sneak through legislation when lots of people are not paying any attention (right before July 4th). In short, this means that there's a decent chance the EARN IT bill will be moving forward and could potentially pass.
This would be very, very bad. I won't go back over everything in it, but the general intent of the bill is to undermine both encryption and Section 230 by trying to make Section 230 dependent on not offering encryption. That's at the highest level. Now, the bill is written in a sneaky way to let some Senators pretend it won't impact encryption, since encryption is not mentioned in the bill. However, the bill does condition 230 protections on meeting certain "best practices" that would be developed through a process mostly controlled by the Attorney General, who has made it clear his number one priority regarding the internet is to kill off real encryption. As we've discussed, the EARN IT Act creates a very dangerous moderator's dilemma that will act to suppress both free speech online and the ability to communicate securely and privately.
And beyond moving forward with such a bad proposal, and trying to sneak it through during a holiday week, it's astounding that this is happening right at the very moment when more people than ever are relying on the internet to work from home -- a situation in which open speech platforms and strong encryption are more important than ever. Indeed, Senator Blumenthal, one of the sponsors of the bill who insisted it wouldn't be used to target encryption, is the same senator who got angry when he found out Zoom video calls weren't end-to-end encrypted.
If he wants to support encryption and promise that EARN IT won't be used to undermine encryption, he should write that explicitly into the law.
In short, the EARN IT Act would:
- Put encryption, privacy, and cybersecurity at risk at a time when we need all three things more than ever.
- Put free speech and open internet platforms at risk, at a time when people need to be able to speak out more than ever.
- Not do a damn thing to actually make anyone safer
- Create a constitutional mess, that might even make it easier for bad actors to get away with things by turning companies into state actors with regards to private info, thereby creating 4th Amendment issues regarding disclosure of information.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: earn it, encryption, free speech, privacy, section 230, security, senate judiciary committee
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Most of the criticism of the EARN IT bill has been focused on the fact that it can be used as a way to compel internet companies to get rid of encryption. This to me is a disservice to those who fight for internet freedom, as encryption is just the tip the iceberg of the possible problems this bill could cause.
In a nutshell, what the EARN IT bill would do is launch a process by congress and various "expert organizations" to create a new government agency which would decide on what "best practices" websites would have to comply with to keep their section 230 immunity. Sure, one of those practices could be disallowing the use of encryption. But that's far from the only horrible policy which could come out of this. Some examples I can think of:
Let your imagination run wild on all the horrible proposals this bill could spawn should it become law. And don't forget that it's not just websites that benefit from section 230, but also ISPs, online services and protocols, and basically everything connected online.
The EARN IT Act is not merely an "attack on encryption". It is a blank check for the U.S. Government to fuck with the internet in any manner of their choosing, tucked inside a trojan horse of "protecting children".
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Tho its looking less likely it will pass this year seeing it still needs to pass Senate and then the House.
Btw some are saying Blumenthal will write that it wont undermine encryption into the law. https://twitter.com/KarlHerk/status/1275431834575343616
How likely is it to pass both the Senate and the House before the election happens? can they rush the bill into law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the fillibuster is abolished, which the Dems will do if they take the Senate, then this, and every other terrible bill, like SOPA, will be passed.
The hard left Dems want to abolish the fillibuster and procedural hold so they can pass the Green New Deal and not need 60 votes to break a fillbuster or procedural hold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's nice mr. votetrumpnomatterwhat, how about focus on our current reality where the main supporters of this effort are republicans so same shit different skin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All modern commerce is dependent on strong crypto. Even purchases taken in cash. (The vendor still uses online banking, transaction clearing services etc.)
The people behind this bill know this. It has been explained to them by their constituents.
So it can only be a shakedown; "We'll crash the economy if social media companies don't become quasi-state agents like the carriers are."; that is the character of the threat.
I say go for it. I totally support the bill. Let them grab the tiger by the tail.
They can play people off eachother with racial epithets all they want. But eventually there is one of two things that is going to happen:
People are going to figure out the game, and start taking a keen interest in the actual progenitors of the all this psychological schism. Or we will have political re-education camps in the U.S. Ignorance either resolves into awareness, or it becomes realized.
We are in a civil war of mass distraction. As a country we are loosing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is what will scare the politicians into doing something, they hate the loss of control that comes from successful protests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thing is will the majority democrats in the Senate and the House back this bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The trainwreck that is FOSTA made it into law, it is never safe to assume that a bill is DOA, especially one that can cause significant damage and has had people from both parties supporting the ideas it's based upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you think this bill will pass before the election?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think Trump and his backers would really love to have a 'win' to show off to those foolish enough to support them(not to mention act as a distraction from other things), so I imagine they'll be trying to slip it through and passed beforehand, though at the same time as a PR stunt there would also be value in dangling it in front of the gullible, a way to try to 'encourage' Trump voters by telling them that they need to keep Trump in office if they want to protect those poor persecuted conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems very unlikely they will be able to slip it through and pass it before the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You watch! It’s in the bag!
Signed,
Mitch McConnell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They need to start advertising for the 2020 election and I bet disney who supports EARN IT is offering some cash, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the house of representatives pass it by next month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which raises the question: why the hell did the house Democrats play into this? I know they were also part of the dogpile against section 230, but you'd think this would be a situation where they'd put election politics on the front burner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dont think most house Democrats are playing into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We haven't heard their stance on the bill but someone messaged nancy pelosi months ago when earn it debuted and claims her response was in support of the bill which 50/50 possibly was a generic response to an email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well according to one Reddit user, the vice chair of the house Judiciary said she outright opposes the bill in a response to a constituent. Plus I looked at some of the co sponsor patterns regarding Fosta/Sesta review Bill's (Bill's that want to study the effects and possibly get rid of fosta/sesta) and see many high profile democrats supporting them including the House Judiciary Chairman. I think there is a solid chance that if the bill passes the Senate, it's going to get bogged down significantly or die in the House Judiciary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply put...
Our government representatives won't be happy until there is a camera they can access in every home.
If they want to get rid of encryption, let's start with them. From there, they can EARN IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply put...
Wait, are you an AntiFa leader? Didn't I see you at the riots burning down buildings? You definitely look familiar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antifascist Action of America
I am the senior executive officer in charge of all Antifa operations. Those building burned at my command. Considering the federal response, I shouldn't have razed blocks but entire districts.
What can I do for you, Anonymous Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antifascist Action of America
You could suck me off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Antifascist Action of America
Got tired spending time with your hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So even if you had access to a high-ranking Antifa commander, you can't imagine asking for anything beyond the services of a common fluffer?
It's a wonder you aren't already left to the buzzards. Maybe it's better if you are confined to your trolling pit, Anonymous Coward. You don't know what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The page for the committee hearing says they’ll be discussing EARN IT but links to something else entirely. Not sure which is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious question for Mike
"turning companies into state actors with regards to private info, thereby creating 4th Amendment issues regarding disclosure of information."
What do you mean by EARN it turning companies into state actors? And what issues are there regarding disclosure of private info?
Are you saying that the EARN it act will force companies to disclose a person's private information, possibly without a warrant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious question for Mike
Well, first you won't be able to comment (as it would impose liability and companies won't allow it), or your comments will be buried in a sea of crap and lies (aka 4chan or 8chan) if sites allow posting without any moderation (which would impose liability).
The sites that do let you post, WILL NOT let you do it anonymously, as that would shift the liability for what you post to them, so you will have to have an identity (probably verified somehow) with them to even post.
And finally, yes they would gladly hand over anything to the government at that point, in order to avoid the liability themselves.
or so it would seem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious question for Mike
How likely is this bill to pass atleast before the election?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious question for Mike
It's likely! It will pass, Trump will be re-elected, 230 will be GONE, Twitter will be GONE, Google will be banished to China, and the Masnick Mafia will be incarcerated under the RICO law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then you’ll likely end up killing yourself because you’ll have lost the only thing that gives your life any meaning (i.e., the ability to troll Techdirt).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Project much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious question for Mike
Its not likely at all to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious question for Mike
"230 will be GONE,"
Then you will be gone, which will be the silver lining of the nightmare collapse you caused the US economy. You know, since the rights enshrined in 230 are available elsewhere, they just didn't have to specify that innocent bystanders can't be sued in the way that you had to.
The rest of us can carry on. Random idiots who depend on being able to comment anonymously in order to lie about people while in the USA on the other hand...
"Google will be banished to China"
...and not lose money or influence by doing so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious question for Mike
Holy crap! Thank you for the clarification, though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious question for Mike
Clarification? You know what's clear? Marxists on this site SUCK the BIG ONE! The revolution is OVER! Trump is going to use HORSES to restore order, like he did for that church! Is he great or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious question for Mike
Right now, companies voluntarily scan their networks for illegal content and report it usually automatcially. This has long been established to not violate the 4th Amendment because it was done by a private actor and of their own volition.
Where it gets fucky is because of the Ackerman decision which ruled in that case that NCMEC acted as an agent of the government for 4th Amendment purposes which caused the evidence in that case to be suppressed.
What many legal scholars including Riana Pfefferkorn who have read the as-introduced text conclude that EARN IT threatens to not only knock off the delicate legal balance that currently exists but the scheme as written will cause many cases to be thrown out letting suspected abusers walk away because if these once voluntary searches are now motivated by an extrinsic mandate or implied mandate (such as dangling 230 protections by following a set of "best practices") then it converts the company who performed the search into "agents of the government" and any evidence would end up suppressed.
So not only would not accomplish what the bill sets out to do but would in fact potentially backfire as any cases under the bill could end up thrown out and actually make it harder to prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that's very bad. Very bad for the Techdirt crowd, who depends on being a fake crowd on a fake web site. The rest of us will be fine. Jerkoffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's it, just stand still, eat the popcorn and keep your eyes on the ballgame. Enjoy the bread and circuses; soon you'll wake up in a cage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Yeah, that's very bad. Very bad for the Techdirt crowd, who depends on being a fake crowd on a fake web site."
So, what you are saying is, you and your comment are fake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What I find funny is that they are either so stupid or so spiteful(or both) as to not realize that if platforms that they post on become liable for user comments then their ability to post, or at the very least post anonymously, will be gone.
No more shitposting anonymously, if they want to troll they're doing it with an account and with their real name given to the site, even if other posters might not see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try me. Am I stupid, or are you deranged? Are you writing to me, using a phony name, in public? Are you embarrassing and humiliating and discrediting both your phony self and this phony web site? Do some more. I love it when idiots write. It makes me so happy that sometimes I jump for joy.
At least my name is not phony. If you want to hide like a coward, why go to the trouble of a phony name, like Stephen T. Stone or PaulT or CodeMonkey?
Maybe because you're the only one writing here, all alone, using name after name, desperately trying to push a failed agenda? Could that be it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this site is so fake, how did Shiva Ayyadurai manage to lose his lawsuit against it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I heard that the Masnick family empire collaborated with the National Intelligence Agencies and unearthed some embarrassing sexual history of the judge dating back to the original settlements in America. Something about incest, first cousins, three thumbed babies, something like that. That's what I heard.
I think I heard that on this very web site. I'm sure you heard it too. We all heard it. Everybody knows that.
That's how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hamilton, when the lawsuit was ongoing you were arguing that this website was piss-poor and had no money which is why they had to rely on Google ads to break even. Now they have enough cash and influence to buy over the judge? What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, you don't know who I am, you dog faced pony soldier. Most days, I don't even know who I am.
Signed,
Joe Biden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you're not a part of the imaginary "thousands of inventors hurt by Mike Masnick", that's for certain. What was obvious from the get go is that you're a con artist, a charlatan, a scammer with an ax to grind. This was clear from Day 1 you decided to shit on this site for giggles, then embarrassed yourself when Shiva Ayyadurai lost to a fake site, then lost to a fake Indian.
Get bent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm intrigued. Are your posts meant to be a list of examples of the type of speech that could never be allowed to be on any site if these ruling go through? Because none of your posts would be allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My posts are meant to shine the sunlight of truth on this phony pony globalist Marxist propaganda machine that has been polluting the internet for far too many years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My posts are meant to shine the sunlight of truth..."
Fail. You come across as mildly inebriated [phony ponies?] and/or butt-hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Person standing on bridge argues against existence of bridges and calls for their immediate destruction' does make for a rather entertaining image, yes, not to mention exposing someone rather lacking in intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, clever analogy. Not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re a middle-aged 4chan reject who has trolled this site for a decade because you got insulted once and took it so personally that you literally made a suicide pact with a website that wasn’t interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Project much? It’s so obvious to everyone but you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Techdirt needs to lose the ability to have anonymous posting without consequences" says the one guy who depends on it for everything he writes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some come here to post real opinions. Without exception, those posters are hidden, banned, attached, blocked, discredited and crushed by a nameless mob, lead by the "Insiders", who are all phony, and conspire behind the scenes to promote their Marxist revolutionary agenda. Sad, pathetic, stupid, but in another way, kind of fun to watch, like Lemmings jumping over the cliff together. Entertaining, as their stupid ideas crash, burn and generally make idiots out of the owners of this toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Some come here to post real opinions."
What's funny is you complain here about "real opinions" then you don't make it another sentence without lying and name calling. Given that you're demanding that your ability to do so is removed, it's hard not to laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've seen you write pretty good posts before, instead of the stupid one above. What do you think about Trump's use of the word "treason", when asked about the Durham Investigation? Wouldn't that be something? A whole group tried for TREASON, and HUNG in PUBLIC. I bet that would slow down a lot of the fakery that goes on here, in Congress and at the FBI. Phony documents? Hang him! Phony wiretaps? Hang him! Phony Poster? He's an accomplice to TREASON - Hang Him TOO!
I love Bill Barr, how about you?
And if you think Obama is immune from hanging, think again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Mike, you should probably report this guy to the FBI for making threats to lynch a Black man. Last I checked, they take hate crimes — and the threats thereof — pretty damn seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, but .... not. Obama is NOT immune, maybe he will be charged with treason, too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lemme guess, that happens right after you lock her up, right chump?
Shiva didn't invent email.
He lost his political race very, very bigly.
And this site is still here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He may not have to. If the Feds are watching, they cold break into the database, get the info they needed, and Mike would never know the Feds were in his database.
That is because MySQL has no logging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"That is because MySQL has no logging"
Erm, you're joking, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bill Barr? I despise him. Wrong on just about every issue from the days when he had wet dreams over creating the US prison state to now, when he's reduced the AG's role to carrying water for a maniac.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, he's probably not too fond of you, either.
Who cares again? You? Not me. Not Bill. Not anyone else.
The Hive Mind? The Hive Mind is MIke with a hundred different voices. Mike is the buzz behind everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Mike is the buzz behind everything."
What's funny is that you think that everyone else is the hive, whereas in reality it's like a normal human get together with one dickhead wasp flying around trying to ruin everyone else's day. Stop being the wasp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only one? Hahahahahah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, there could certainly be more but they seem to turn up one at a time. Since they refuse to identify themselves, the default assumption has to be that only one person is this obsessed and stupid. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but that would involved the idiots identifying themselves, so it won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another example of how Mike Masnick needs to take a college class in public speaking. Cut the "terrible" out, Mike, "dangerous" says says it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After FOSTA I'm terrified.
We knew SESTA (the House version) was really bad. FOSTA was worse but our attention was focused on stopping SESTA, and then they did some (maybe literal) midnight shenanigans to pass FOSTA.
And then all the big companies were evicting sex workers, LGBT+ topics and porn sharing off all their servers.
At this point people who want to talk about LGBT+ stuff, sex workers who want to discuss sex work problems and people who want to share porn have to set up massive anonymity walls as if we were citizens of an oppressive regime trying to tell the rest of the world how miserable it's become over here.
Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Most of the criticism of the EARN IT bill has been focused on the fact that it can be used as a way to compel internet companies to get rid of encryption. This to me is a disservice to those who fight for internet freedom, as encryption is just the tip the iceberg of the possible problems this bill could cause.
In a nutshell, what the EARN IT bill would do is launch a process by congress and various "expert organizations" to create a new government agency which would decide on what "best practices" websites would have to comply with to keep their section 230 immunity. Sure, one of those practices could be disallowing the use of encryption. But that's far from the only horrible policy which could come out of this. Some examples I can think of:
Let your imagination run wild on all the horrible proposals this bill could spawn should it become law. And don't forget that it's not just websites that benefit from section 230, but also ISPs, online services and protocols, and basically everything connected online.
The EARN IT Act is not merely an "attack on encryption". It is a blank check for the U.S. Government to fuck with the internet in any manner of their choosing, tucked inside a trojan horse of "protecting children".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Most of the criticism of Techdirt is that is that dissent is crushed or censored, only a single opinion is forwarded in an obviously and blindly (and stupidly) enthusiastic manner, that the writing is poor, that the themes are ridiculous (only the Techdirt opinion is legitimate), that Mike (and his friends) pose under multiple phony names, and you don't research your articles, subjects or points of view.
That's not all of the criticism, that's maybe 55%, which means it's most of it.
Other than that, it sucks, but no more than more legitimate sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Which sites would you consider more legitimate? You're being a bit vague and I'd like some more information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Well, look, I never said this site was not legitimate. It reflects exactly how the Leftist Marxist culture works in America. If you enjoy foolish young idiots spouting their stupid philosophies, in unison, like a hive mind, then this is the place. If you like to see snowflakes that are so fragile that cannot even stand the sight of a critical comment, here we are.
If you like real commentary from real people, I like Parler.com. In fact, I have a significant stake in Parler.com, and I think it is the perfect place to go to be free from leftist Marxist idiots. They're too afraid to post there, because they don't have control No one does. It's an open site with open ideas and open opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Wow I took a quick look and everyone I like is there: Dan Bongino, Tom Fitton, Gen. MIchael Flynn, John Solomon, Devin Nunes, Mark Levin, and many more. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Interesting Twitter alternative you have there. I've actually been looking around for a good alt for a while, maybe I'll take a look at it.
There seems to be a very strong encouragement to verify your account on that Twitter alternative. I looked over the site to figure out what additional benefits verifying an account unlocks, but I didn't see it listed anywhere. Would you be willing to explain them to me? I'm guessing you're extremely knowledgeable about the site's inner workings. Sell it to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on encryption
Well, you're right about the account verification. It's a little inconvenient, I had to get a new SMS on my phone for every device that I used. But, the people are real. I guess the upside to actually connecting with real people is that you don't get the phony crazies that dominate this site. I mean, I'm real, but almost all the posters with names, especially the "insider" guys that have thousands and thousands of posts are all fictitious characters that no one can verify. For sure, this site is as fake as it comes, and the Marxist slant is obvious for all to see. Parler.com is more real, real people, real opinions, not the fake and crazy leftist wacko dacko idiots that would never use their real names for anything.
But it is fun here to see what crazy phony shit they invent and try to promote. LIke there is only one opinion that matters, and news outlets should stick to the script, that was a big push here, no dissenting opinions are allowed. Burn it all down, that was another. Doing logging is more dangerous than doing policing, that was a gem. They list goes on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on encrypt
The Fran Drescher mask a little tight around your mouth, isn't it Hamilton? Here's some advice - faith or no, you can't replace oxygen with Shiva Ayyadurai's ayurvedic turmeric mixed with his semen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on enc
There you go, crazy shit, just like I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on
Just like your Massachusetts tiger fairies. Weren't they supposed to help the judge convict Masnick? How'd that turn out? Oh, right - it turned out like your promise to arrest Hilary Clinton and build a wall around Mexico: absolute sweet fuck-all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attac
So, OK, you're insane. Are you denying the WALL? Have you seen the PICTURES? Have you ignored the SPEECHES?
Are you la LEFTIST IDIOT? Oh, yeah, Techdirt. That's where I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an a
And how many Mexicans did you block out with pictures and speeches, then? Was it as successful as your Shiva Ayyadurai campaign to rape this site, or beat Elizabeth Warren?
Sweet fuck-all, that's what you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just
Pictures Of the Wall. Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than j
And how do you think a picture's going to intimidate anyone, jackass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on encrypt
"I'm real, but almost all the posters with names, especially the "insider" guys that have thousands and thousands of posts are all fictitious characters that no one can verify."
Lol. Have you talked to IMAX recently? Having that level of projection without the proper licencing could get you in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Far worse than just an attack on enc
Trouble? Only with leftie wackos like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best practices?
What happened to "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; [...]"? Defining under which conditions freedom of speech is curtailed by a government process seems like it would be an open-and-shut case for the Supreme Case and an obvious "doh" for a lawmaker who bothered looking into the Bill of Rights, even if the attention span lasted only one paragraph, before swearing a solemn oath to uphold it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best practices?
It's but one of the many ways the bill falls flat on it's face in regards to passing constitutional muster.
It is in essence the government mandating what speech is allowed on the internet.
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/03/earn-it-act-unconstitutional-first-first-amendm ent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is EARN IT *Actually* About Encryption Now?
Am I the only one concerned, in light of the fact that Graham has made a more direct attack on encryption with a fresh bill, that the purpose of EARN IT is to do something like bringing back the aspects of the Communications Decency Act that were struck down by Reno v. ACLU?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Communications Decency Act
The problem with the CDA remains that Americans want their porn. We can criminalize it all we want, but that will only drive the saucy pic exchange underground.
And the nice thing about having it above ground is then it can be regulated. We can be sure that the videos everyone is watching is persons of age who are fairly compensated and consented to all the stuff we're watching them do and get done. Once it goes underground, all the less consensual stuff and unethical stuff (child porn, snuff, crush, etc. is just as accessible.)
On the other hand, I did enjoy everyone adding a random literary sex scene to the sig line of every email and forum comment. We should go back to doing that and posting copyrighted kittens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communications Decency Act
On the other hand, I did enjoy everyone adding a random literary sex scene to the sig line of every email and forum comment. We should go back to doing that and posting copyrighted kittens.
... wait, what? That sounds hilarious, mind explaining that one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDA "obscene or indecent" clause
Right after its signing in February 1996, the full CDA went into effect, making it impossible to submit any media that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs. in a form that might be received by someone under 18 years old.
It was ridiculous, and it became clear that naughty bits of the Holy Bible, let alone countless literary classics could not be published in full on the internet without committing a felony, and as a result many, many netizens would in defiance of the CDA find a passage they liked and add it to their sig file.
I'm pretty sure it was routine to have apps that rotated through multiple sig files over time, or choose a random passage.
It was glorious! Literally. Literarily!
One of the early rulings (Reno v. ACLU maybe?) not only determined this was too much of an imposition on First Amendment rights, but also opined the full internet might be outside the jurisdiction of the United States, since it is a global body. Not that this opinion has stopped nations from passing laws as if the they, themselves controlled the entire internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDA "obscene or indecent" clause
Rich people, who could afford the cost of international long distance, would not have been affected
a rich person could have dialed up an ISP in, say, Canada, and totally cirumvted the law, if it has been upheld
Canadian ISPs are not subject to any US laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDA "obscene or indecent" clause
That does indeed sound glorious, adding excerpts from classics and the gorram bible to show just how absurd a law is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communications Decency Act
The problem is, right-wingers (And this applies to a TON of Democrats, too; most are right-wing) tend to go "Ban it and screw the consequences!"
We saw a similar thing with the war on drugs; the only thing it accomplished was a dramatic increase of non-violent prisoners in the US and the militarization of our police force, all without making much of a dent (if at all) in drug-related crime. And yet, they refuse to admit that they were wrong because "Drugs should remain illegal because I think they're immoral". That's pretty much their only line of thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Urn It Act
"...that will act to suppress both free speech online and the ability to communicate securely and privately."
But of course. A fascist regime cannot thrive and prosper as long as the public can conspire secretly against it via encrypted communications, and the ability to actually spy on every single citizen has been a fascist wet-dream since - forever.
This bill will kill many birds with one stone and open the USA to some serious legally-allowed exploitation and dissident-culling by the Trump Cartel and any billionaires (s)elected as POTUS who follow until the USA is a bankrupt hulk - wide open to invasion - and just another foot-note in history, which will of course be written by the billionaires.
And just in time too, what with many of the big US cities considering the notion of dismantling some of the extra-legal (read criminal) and secret police units and the criminally insane Police Unions that train and protect them, this bill will help put things back on track and let the billionaire's final solution get back in the saddle, before any real damage to the business-plan occurs.
And as long as its socially totally un-Cool to consider - let alone discuss - the idea that a fascist regime could actually take over the US government and destroy the USA from within, the Urn It Act should suffice to eliminate any real threats to the systematic transfer of the American economy into off-shore safe haven bank accounts by American billionaires and their foreign friends.
It IS happening here folks.
Wake up or kiss your American Dream goodbye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Urn It Act
So what should we do about the Fascist threat? People who claim that the Fascists are winning don't ever seem to offer a solution. So the only real and effective one I think of using the Second Amendment against this Fascist coup as peaceful negotiating with them is simply not an option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The Fascists are winning"
In Germany 1923 forward, the Jews had only one option: leave Germany. And many did. Far from all of them, though.
We are now in a fascist state, but we're still at a point where we can turn it around if enough people realize they're in a fascist state and are willing to act -- violently if necessarily -- to prevent it from continuing forward.
The deaths will continue unstopped so long as nothing is done to stop them. But then we're burning down precincts, which seems to be the only language the government (federal or state) understands.
As I'm certain the abolition of the the entire justice system will be required to turn the US into a public-serving state, nothing less will be acceptable, and the EARN IT act will ultimately be moot.
Essentially the EARN IT act will be a tool ICE doesn't need, since they'll be the ones enforcing it, and they already purge whoever they want without legal cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Urn It Act
"So what should we do about the Fascist threat?"
That in a nutshell, is the five million dollar question.
As far as I can tell, fascism always wins.
It wins because the people behind this eternal business plan are all billionaires - people that everyone wants to be or be like, and who we thus do not allow ourselves to see as bad people. After all, we don't want to be, or be like, bad people, right. So they get a pass. We simply cannot believe that our heroes are trying to drain the nation and its people of their assets. After all, these are the people who already have everything one could want right.
Add to that the simple fact that their wealthy status allows them the extra-legal privilege of buying their way out of any misdeed they are caught perpetrating, and the fact that they normally pay others - minions - to do the actual dirty-work, and you have the new "Untouchables".
Due to their combined wealth, a fascist cabal controls the law by controlling the law makers. Politicians, notorious for accepting "Gifts" in return for creating legal loopholes in restrictive laws that billionaires can safely traverse to "get the job done", are lined up at the doors of these billionaires, begging to lend a hand in the destruction of their nation, for a price.
But this is ALWAYS the way of things. If there is an exit from this mess we have built around us again, and the inevitable final exploitation by our own most influential citizens, history does not offer it. I think in fact that many if not most of the failed attempts at civilization in our past, (save a few natural disaster scenarios like buried by volcanoes), were due in fact to this very same situation - fascism - the wealthy attempting to take it all by subverting the law.
It might help somewhat to note that Fascism is NOT a political aspiration. It is 100% commercial. It is the act of wealthy individuals, conspiring in secret, to take it all, by utilizing government as a weapon and a disguise. It simply works.
If there is an answer to this recurring nightmare, we had better damn well start looking soon though. So far they have won every battle, simply because we refuse to believe who the enemy - who we all want to be or be like - is, and so we attack someone we don't like instead of the true enemy, making matters worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Dream is gone
We already have technology to circumvent such laws, so make encryption look like garbage in memory, to have encrypted blocks that have multiple accounts and show law enforcement something less incriminating than my treasonous terror plot logistics and budgeting.
It's possible the Senate is really this daft and naïve, or it's possible they're not really going after terrorists who cover their tracks. (It's also possible they're hoping terrorists don't cover their tracks.)
But this doesn't really target treasonists and terrorists. This targets the ordinary prole. It's meant to assure they can find reason to incarcerate any ordinary Joe or Jane who is inconvenient to their treachery.
And If this is actually used to drive innocent civilians and legitimate business into the ground for the purposes of our officials' private interests, it will drive people into the above category of terrorists who cover their tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The American Dream is gone
Okay, but what are WE, the American people going to do about it? You are not answering my question. What can we do to forcibly restore our freedoms and rights if we have truly lost them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High Castle America
Michael, you're asking two separate questions and I'm afraid I'm going to give you unsatisfactory answers
What are we, the American people going to do about it?
We, the American people, don't know.
I have no doubt hundreds of thousands of Americans are seeing the current status quo as untenable and trying to find a path out of it. Tens of millions of Americans are recognizing the US is a dangerous place to live and the government is antagonistic to the public, and are wondering how they personally are going to survive.
We are in a fascist police state where power is consolidated in the Department of Justice (law enforcement and district attorneys) and the courts, whether captured or just wanting to cooperate with the people they know, are more than yielding. The encroachments of our freedoms by the federal government are a combination of pressure to religious conformity (specifically to a narrow range of Protestant Evangelical values) and also to make it more difficult for the people to start an insurrection. That is to say they know they're unpopular and are panicking.
Also, in the case of FOSTA, EARN IT and whatever the DoJ is cooking up to kill encryption, they're old people scared of technology they don't understand. It's as much a fear of a robot uprising and malicious haxxorz as it is of trafficked kids.
When it comes to tech solutions, get yourself on a VPN. Get familiar with encryption options that are not contingent on what's built into your operating system. Know that Law enforcement doesn't arrest you for what you did but who you are, and once they decide you're no longer one of the good ones they'll search for cause to oubliette you. That said, avoid drawing the attention of law enforcement to yourself.
What can we do to forcibly restore our freedoms and rights if we have truly lost them?
The answer to that is well above my pay grade, and requires an insurrection scholar (yes, we have those) to work out some next steps (rather than rioting and razing precincts). Again, some people are thinking about this, seeing that rioting and looting aren't functional in the long term, and not rioting doesn't accomplish anything, and more people will die and more liberties will be lost while we watch. So far, I personally have not been privy to any organized insurrections that exist, or ones that are organizing. And that's likely because they're laying low while they rally. But I also recognize that movement towards revolution is a slow and complicated process, more than I personally understand, despite my efforts to study historic ones and how they developed.
That said I personally do plenty of research in the name of fiction writing. And that may eventually draw attention to my otherwise boring self. That said, they'll find some esoteric thing I done wrong and our justice system will put me away for twenty-five years, because more warm bodies in prisons suits it, even if that would increase the burden on the state budget. They don't care. For now, alleged Antifa crimelords and BLM leaders seem to be their primary targets, and I'm not one of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Castle America
"...because more warm bodies in prisons suits it, even if that would increase the burden on the state budget."
" {burden on the state budget.} "
And this is why every successful fascist regime needs a private prison system.
Inc.Arcerate.Inc Call today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could see websites all leaving the United States to avoid this law.
I say good luck enforcing this abroad
If you own a home in Seattle, the Bay Area or in Sacramento, you better sell now before home prices plunge when tech companies are forced to to leave to avoid the Earn it Act.
This law will cause the current recession to be even worse when companies leave the USA to avoid the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money trail.
"This law will cause the current recession to be even worse when companies leave the USA to avoid the law."
I think the way to deal with all things fascist, is the old money trail method.
Fascists are basically money-holics - never enough - addicted to it and the power it allows one to wield.
So the real question is, how does this new legislation and the chaos it guarantees, aid/profit the top 1% of the population?
What is it really meant to do? One guarantee; Its not supposed to do what it says it will on the surface/title.
So how does the exit of industries help the super rich? This happened before did it not? Lots of companies went over-seas for some tax-based reason a couple decades ago I think. What part of that exodus profited the billionaires the most. They tend to re-use that which worked, like any good con does.
Follow the money trail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]