Over 60 Human Rights/Public Interest Groups Urge Congress To Drop EARN IT Act
from the it's-a-bad-bill,-senators dept
We've already talked about the many problems with the EARN IT Act, how the defenders of the bill are confused about many basic concepts, how the bill will making children less safe and how the bill is significantly worse than FOSTA. I'm working on most posts about other problems with the bill, but it really appears that many in the Senate simply don't care.
Tomorrow they'll be doing a markup of the bill where it will almost certainly pass out of the Judiciary Committee, at which point it could be put up for a floor vote at any time. Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process.
But for now at least over 60 human rights and public interest groups have signed onto a detailed letter from CDT outlining many of the problems in the bill, and asking the Senate to take a step back before rushing through such a dangerous bill.
Looking to the past as prelude to the future, the only time that Congress has limited Section 230 protections was in the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (SESTA/FOSTA). That law purported to protect victims of sex trafficking by eliminating providers’ Section 230 liability shield for “facilitating” sex trafficking by users. According to a 2021 study by the US Government Accountability Office, however, the law has been rarely used to combat sex trafficking.
Instead, it has forced sex workers, whether voluntarily engaging in sex work or forced into sex trafficking against their will, offline and into harm’s way. It has also chilled their online expression generally, including the sharing of health and safety information, and speech wholly unrelated to sex work. Moreover, these burdens fell most heavily on smaller platforms that either served as allies and created spaces for the LGBTQ and sex worker communities or simply could not withstand the legal risks and compliance costs of SESTA/FOSTA. Congress risks repeating this mistake by rushing to pass this misguided legislation, which also limits Section 230 protections.
It also discusses the attacks on encryption hidden deep within the bill.
End-to-end encryption ensures the privacy and security of sensitive communications such that only the sender and receiver can view them. This security is relied upon by journalists, Congress, the military, domestic violence survivors, union organizers, and anyone who seeks to keep their communications secure from malicious hackers. Everyone who communicates with others on the internet should be able to do so privately. But by opening the door to sweeping liability under state laws, the EARN IT Act would strongly disincentivize providers from providing strong encryption. Section 5(7)(A) of EARN IT states that provision of encrypted services shall not “serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider” under the expanded set of state criminal and civil laws for which providers would face liability under EARN IT. Further, Section 5(7)(B) specifies that courts will remain able to consider information about whether and how a provider employs end-to-end encryption as evidence in cases brought under EARN IT. This language, originally proposed in last session’s House companion bill, takes the form of a protection for encryption, but in practice it will do the opposite: courts could consider the offering of end-to-end encrypted services as evidence to prove that a provider is complicit in child exploitation crimes. While prosecutors and plaintiffs could not claim that providing encryption, alone, was enough to constitute a violation of state CSAM laws, they would be able to point to the use of encryption as evidence in support of claims that providers were acting recklessly or negligently. Even the mere threat that use of encryption could be used as evidence against a provider in a criminal prosecution will serve as a strong disincentive to deploying encrypted services in the first place.
Additionally, EARN IT sets up a law enforcement-heavy and Attorney General-led Commission charged with producing a list of voluntary “best practices” that providers should adopt to address CSAM on their services. The Commission is free to, and likely will, recommend against the offering of end-to-end encryption, and recommend providers adopt techniques that ultimately weaken the cybersecurity of their products. While these “best practices” would be voluntary, they could result in reputational harm to providers if they choose not to comply. There is also a risk that refusal to comply could be considered as evidence in support of a provider’s liability, and inform how judges evaluate these cases. States may even amend their laws to mandate the adoption of these supposed best practices. For many companies, the lack of clarity and fear of liability, in addition to potential public shaming, will likely disincentivize them from offering strong encryption, at a time when we should be encouraging the opposite.
There's a lot more in the letter, and the Copia Institute is proud to be one of the dozens of signatories, along with the ACLU, EFF, Wikimedia, Mozilla, Human Rights Campaign, PEN America and many, many more organizations.
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, section 230, senate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process. "
Corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, Washington's head-up-its-own-ass culture, which is one of corruption, as you said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
didnt they fire all the Knowledgeable people long ago?
I remember them getting rid of the Tech Czars, and a few others.
Then trump wouldnt even listen to his OWN Top doctors about things.
Isnt it time we start Lopping off heads? Please. They do it in China, or did. 16 states still have capital punishment. We need to make a Stand and Show them WE are the Employer, WE are responsible to this nation NOT THEM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who are YOU? Who is THEM? Who are the so-called "Tech Czars"? Seriously -- this isn't about you (nobody) or them (nobodies) or Tech Czars (not a thing).
I don't know what's in your pocket, but what "we" are you talking about that will lop off heads? Whose murder do you advocate? Why do you feel your opinion matters? Use big words and avoid the pronouns.
So... trump isn't capitalized but Oprah Winfrey's Network and a missing apostrophe makes it all good but the whole thing is not a sentence. Did you finish first grade???
Normally TD responses are literate, intelligent, provide background... but this one is a duesy.
What we is this?
What we is this. Whom do you think you employ, you illiterate rat-bait.
Yeah, no, you're not.
Go back to your room and finish your homework.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's probably meaning the people that voted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
doozy*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
You dont know about the information Czars? WOW, they have been gone along time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AND we elected them, as any employer does a new hire. WSe keep them on as long as they follow the rules created.
Lopping off a head or even sending a few to jail might make the rest of them to START thinking better.
Start doing jobs they should have done years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Direct Democracy. Representative Democracy. Don't mix them up.
We are, indeed responsible to this nation. As are they.
So very many of us phone it in: "I voted for Senator/Congressman, leave me alone." ... and then are surprised when their representative votes "the other way".
Write to your congressman today. (Email if you must, but a written letter will carry more weight.) And all the while, keep in mind: your representatives represent people on the other side of the debate as well. Make your arguments with logic, with statistics, with information your representative can look up for themselves. If all you've got is "I don't like this", well... what would YOU do getting email like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yet, they don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, There’s no use because they don’t give a flying fuck. I fear we’re just gonna have to brace for the worst. It’s basically a foregone conclusion sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again:
True, they can end up being law, however, the fight will always continue.
We can repeal earn it.
Never give up, Never give in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s literally no point, Everything we love online will be gone forever. This is the equivalent to a nuclear strike and makes SOPA and A17 look like child’s play in comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't like those two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And again:
need I remind you that A17 was also treated like that too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least SOPA was in an era where Congress wasn’t after Big Tech 24/7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No matter how despondent you might be, never parrot that its no use if you don't have a better method of action ready to present. If you are out of energy to fight, that's on you - but don't tear down those who are fighting.
Doing so makes you an ally of the perpetrators. When you say things like this, here's what's implied:
"Your vote doesn't matter." (So why bother voting? Just let the fascists win.)
"There's no point in fighting." (Just submit to the jackboot. Let them burn the books.)
"It's no use, they won't listen." (So just let them pass it without even trying.)
No matter the chances of success, if no action is taken, the chances become zero. Advocating for no action means you advocate for intentional failure. If you can't act, don't - but do not ally yourselves with those working against your interests by advocating for apathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its unlikely everything we love online will be gone forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: too hard, just give up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This is the equivalent to a nuclear strike and makes SOPA and A17 look like child’s play in comparison."
SOPA? The bill that ultimately failed to pass because of the massive public backlash against it?
You've identified the point of fighting - are you going to be willing to put in the effort?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone's going to stab you, make them work for it
Once again: SOPA.
That bill was a done deal, expected to sail right though with ease, yet a big enough pushback was enough to tank it.
Fight back and you might lose, give up and you ensure it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"...your representatives represent people on the other side of the debate as well. Make your arguments with logic, with statistics, with information your representative can look up for themselves. If all you've got is "I don't like this", well... what would YOU do getting email like that?"
Sounds like work. Lamentably we're at the point where I can't see the average american doing any of that unless they're getting paid to do it. With, quite often, two mortgages on their house, no money to send their oldest to college, and both breadwinners in the family pulling ten hour shifts offering any of their time pro bono might not end up the highest priority on their calendar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process. "
Because the sponsors know it's a bad bill so they're trying to rush it through before any significant resistance can be mounted against it which gives away the game that they simply do not care if it exacerbates the CSAM problem, cause the takedown of perfectly legal speech, and encourage companies to proactively spy on all their users which imperils the very tenuous tightrope companies walk to not have evidence suppressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a great bill if your intention is to get rid of end-to-end encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will Ron Wyden be able to filibuster it or are there enough senators in support of the bill to bypass him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hopefully Ron Wyden could put a hold on the bill (if I know how the Senate works correctly).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kinda doubt it, though since biden's nominees keep getting blocked, that could mean a delay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What’s the point considering they won’t listen and it will pass without a sweat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its unlikely to pass without a sweat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unlikely?
Try telling that to FOSTA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tho the bill is likely to face delays again seeing there still alot of other stuff going on in congress like Biden’s nominees.
How soon could there be a full vote on the Senate floor if it were to pass markup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taking that with a pinch of salt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If his nominees are being blocked tgen Congress will most likely change their schedule. The rushed nstur of this bill screams they're trying to get this through before they have to start campaigning for the midterms. At this point I see no worth in voting anymore, both sides want to micromanage my life while making me a wage slave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You never know what can happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, then don't. Sit back, wait for your reaming from whoever ends up in office and let people who are still interested in trying to change things do their thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don’t be naive, It happens with these bills all the time, They pass and become law at lightning speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We can still fight it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, they can be law, however, the fight will always continue.
We can repeal earn it.
Never give up, Never give in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How soon could there be a full vote on the Senate floor if it were to pass markup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sad but true fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh shit! It'll definitely be voted in now, then! We all know that the last thing Congress ever does is consider the opinion of the public, taking industry's first and foremost!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that's rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reminds me of how FOSTA passed. Faced delays then it came back with little to no debate and passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Deja vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, this is Deja Moo, where we've all seen the same bull before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tho its likely to face delays again seeing there still alot of other stuff going on in congress like Biden’s nominees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will they be voting it out of mark up tomorrow? some are saying it could be next week? How soon could there be a full vote on the Senate floor if it were to pass markup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly, idk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem though:
Do you think writing a letter will do anything?
Though at least you're aware that they don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EARN IT... something clearly not about Congress and public trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the hell is this not being treated as apocalypses like SOPA or A17!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it isn't like those two.
And before you start saying something about it, need I remind you that A17 was also treated like that too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where’s the Wikipedia blackout then!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, that's not gonna matter, we again can and will continue fighting, no matter what happens, so please drop the cynicism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And one more thing, why are you acting so negative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I view those who tear down any positive action with "it won't matter" with suspicion - there's always a chance they're working for the people trying to pass it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not working for the bastards who are pushing this, I’m being honest as proven by the Net Neutrality vote in 2017, A17 in 2019 (Though this one is kinda cheating because the outcome was caused by a few MEP’s voting the wrong way accidentally from what I remember). The point is lawmakers don’t care anymore about backlash. Times have changed, Big Tech has been the worst thing ever for lawmakers around the world since the 2016 election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, it's all Trump's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process.
I think it’s quite simple why they’re rushing the process…
it’s because the Winter Prom is the day after! They’re finishing up so that they can setup the event and dance the night away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's easy, they simply don't care what opponents have to say. They don't care if it will have unintended consequences. Actually, I'd argue that they aren't unintended. They're in favor of banning encryption and piling more liability on tech companies, so any law that accomplishes that is good in their eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'They'd just tell us we're wrong and that won't do.'
Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, pick me, pick me!
It's because they don't care what the experts know and would rather avoid having a bunch of those people say on the record and possibly on national television why their bill is not only a horrible idea but will actually make things much worse for exploited children, such that anyone who votes for EARN IT is in fact voting for CSAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]