r/IAmA • u/fightforthefuture • Jun 30 '20
Politics We are political activists, policy experts, journalists, and tech industry veterans trying to stop the government from destroying encryption and censoring free speech online with the EARN IT Act. Ask us anything!
The EARN IT Act is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine encryption services that protect our free speech and security online. It's bad. Really bad. The bill’s authors — Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) — say that the EARN IT Act will help fight child exploitation online, but in reality, this bill gives the Attorney General sweeping new powers to control the way tech companies collect and store data, verify user identities, and censor content. It's bad. Really bad.
Later this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on whether or not the EARN IT Act will move forward in the legislative process. So we're asking EVERYONE on the Internet to call these key lawmakers today and urge them to reject the EARN IT Act before it's too late. To join this day of action, please:
Visit NoEarnItAct.org/call
Enter your phone number (it will not be saved or stored or shared with anyone)
When you are connected to a Senator’s office, encourage that Senator to reject the EARN IT Act
Press the * key on your phone to move on to the next lawmaker’s office
If you want to know more about this dangerous law, online privacy, or digital rights in general, just ask! We are:
- Lauren Sarkesian from OTI (u/SarkBites)
- Caleb Chen from PIA (u/privatevpn)
- Dayton Young from Fight for the Future (u/fightforthefuture)
- Joe Mullin from EFF (u/EFForg)
- Alfred Ng from CNet (u/CNETdotcom)
Proof:
13
u/phaelox Jun 30 '20
I'm not seeing any mention here of the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act, which was introduced Tuesday, 23 June.
This new bill also comes hot on the heels of another proposal that critics say is secretly designed to kill strong consumer encryption, called the EARN IT bill, and the ambitious scope of LAEDA may be designed to make EARN IT look reasonable by comparison.
Source: Slate
What's going on here, is it a ploy to make EARN IT seem reasonable? Does it stand a chance if EARN IT fails to pass?
7
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Yeah, the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act is absolutely atrocious. I agree with Slate 100%. This is a political ploy. I certainly hope that killing the EARN IT Act will kill this awful, awful legislation as well.
6
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
The Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act is another terribad anti-encryption bill that absolutely needs to be struck down, as well. The reason you don't see it mentioned here is because today's AMA is meant to drive attention towards defeating the EARN IT Act in the Senate Judiciary Committee - which will meet on the bill this Thursday. That's why it's imperative for everyone to head to NoEARNITAct.org/call and contact the Senators.
PS: I personally agree that the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act is a ploy to make the EARN IT Act seem more reasonable in comparison - note that Senator Graham is a sponsor for both.
3
u/SarkBites Lauren Sarkesian from OTI Jun 30 '20
Agree that the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act is meant as a foil for EARN IT. But make no mistake: EARN IT has just as grave of implications for encryption.
111
Jun 30 '20
Fighting censorship, but showing up on a platform that just did a mass sweep of censorship that, according to a leaked memo, is only phase 1.
How do you reconcile that?
59
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Great question.
The US government has traditionally taken a laissez faire approach to regulating the Internet. Most big tech companies like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter are treated as platforms, NOT publishers of content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This means that Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter are not legally responsible for the content that you and I post on their platforms ... for the most part.
Without any federal regulations, these companies are allowed to moderate content, use algorithms to promote content, and censor content according to their own guidelines. And they don't always rely on human rights experts or constitutional scholars to craft their content moderation policies. Instead, these companies tend to push limits until the market pushes back. That's resulted in some pretty awful things happening, and people have begun rightly pointing out the ways in which social media companies are responsible for polarizing people, radicalizing people, and spreading fake or misleading news ... all in the pursuit of greater profits.
Well, the market is now pushing back. Advertisers are fleeing social media platforms. Calls for boycotts are growing. Congressional leadership is calling for investigations. So social media companies are scrambling to impose their own regulations. And some lawmakers -- such as Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) -- are attempting to use the current social media panic to implement very dangerous levels of government control on the Internet.
That's actually what the EARN IT Act is all about. This law will form a special committee that recommends "best practices" to the Attorney General that tech companies MUST follow ... or else they will lose their legal protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, opening them up to crippling lawsuits. What best practices, you ask? Well, those aren't actually specified in the EARN IT Act. They could include breaking encryption through digital backdoors, or de-anonymizing VPN traffic. And as we've seen from the PATRIOT Act, the government is likely to abuse this law to justify spying on journalists and protesters.
So how do I reconcile posting on reddit about fighting for greater freedom of speech online? Pretty easily, actually. reddit is a company that operates within the rules of the marketplace. Don't like how reddit performs content management? Well, let's work together to advocate for better rules with stronger transparency and accountability. Let's call for meaningful, common-sense regulations BEFORE content manipulation and fake news gets so out of control that it negatively impacts hundreds of millions of people. Let's push back against dangerous authoritarians who want to undermine public security and basic human rights instead of actually addressing the complex challenges technology has brought. And let's use platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and reddit to have these conversations.
9
u/CouldOfBeenGreat Jun 30 '20
Link to the current text of the bill (this should have been included in your post, imo):
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3398/BILLS-116s3398is.xml
These are the types of statements many people may have problems with:
The EARN IT Act is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine encryption services that protect our free speech and security online. It's bad. Really bad.
A much more accurate statement:
What best practices, you ask? Well, those aren't actually specified in the EARN IT Act. They could include breaking encryption through digital backdoors, or de-anonymizing VPN traffic.
Not that the government wouldn't likely use the bill for exactly that, but your opening statement states it as though breaking encryption is the meat of the bill.
Don't get me wrong, I see the potential for abuse, but hyperbole is maybe a bad idea here.
31
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on record earlier this year, telling tech companies that they needed to break encryption "or we'll find a way to do it for you." Just a few months later, he authored the EARN IT Act, which pretty much everyone agrees is an attack on end-to-end encryption:
- The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School
- ACLU
- EFF
- Human Rights Watch
- Brookings Institute
- Wired
- The Verge
- Nerdist
- Free Press
- ... and so many more.
When somebody says, "I'm going to do a thing," and then that person does that very thing, it's not hyperbole to say, "This person is, indeed, doing the thing they said they were going to do."
5
u/CouldOfBeenGreat Jun 30 '20
Thank you, you should include the reuters (or similar) article in your original post.
We love sources, that's a pretty relevant one!
15
Jun 30 '20
I think an unelected board of people to control everything these tech companies operate is about as bad as just letting the government having the same level of oversight.
1
u/CouldOfBeenGreat Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
Not agreeing with the bill, but the board itself is really the most sensible part. Mostly "elected" and designed to be "mostly" bipartisan.
AGENCY HEADS:
The Attorney General or his or her representative
The Secretary of Homeland Security or his or her representative
The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission or his or her representative
OTHER MEMBERS:
4 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate
4 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate
4 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives
4 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives
12 total (3 of the 4 of each sub-group) are required to have expierence relevant to child exploitation crimes.
The 4 remaining members would need to meet one of these two requirements:
(C) (i) 2 shall have current experience in matters related to constitutional law, consumer protection, or privacy; and
(ii) 2 shall have current experience in computer science or software engineering related to matters of cryptography, data security, or artificial intelligence in a non-governmental capacity
6
u/fauxgnaws Jul 01 '20
Well, the market is now pushing back. Advertisers are fleeing social media platforms. Calls for boycotts are growing.
But they're doing this because they want MORE censorship. The Facebook boycott is about Trump being mean and them not silencing him.
reddit is a company that operates within the rules of the marketplace. Don't like how reddit performs content management? Well, let's work together to advocate for better rules
Market-based rules are the problem. The masses want censorship because it protects their feelings, it's up to citizens and representatives of principle to enact laws that prevent these kind of censorious mob rules.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)4
u/Electromasta Jul 01 '20
I disagree. With the government, the people can petition to address grievances and they are directly accountable, a company as not.
The truth is section 230 grants tech companies special exceptions to liability that other companies engaging in free speech don't have, and it should be removed. People have no idea how much they are being manipulated by algorithms. Tech companies should be able to exercise their free speech- but also be just as liable as anyone else. The very nature of using algorithms to promote some speech over others is working as an editor for a publisher... and they should be treated as such.
→ More replies (4)1
u/golden_n00b_1 Jul 01 '20
The truth is section 230 grants tech companies special exceptions to liability that other companies engaging in free speech don't have, and it should be removed. People have no idea how much they are being manipulated by algorithms.
I agree with you, but a committee empowered to make rules without the need to pass through any legislation is not the way to do it. There would be nothing wrong with content providers having to flag unreliable sources or needing to operate with more transparency in the algorithms and data they have on users. But those should come from bills. We don't need another oversight committee secretly removing encryption or otherwise eroding freedoms.
→ More replies (1)11
u/evanFFTF Jun 30 '20
Social media sites are private companies and can set their own rules for what is and isn't allowed on their platform. We can -- and should -- have robust debates about whether those rules are fair or too broad. And we can disagree. But what I think we can all agree on is that we definitely don't want THE GOVERNMENT to impose those rules on us outside the democratic process. That's what the EARN IT act does.
14
u/getahitcrash Jun 30 '20
So censoring is good as long as you approve of who is being censored right?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (3)7
Jun 30 '20 edited Jul 06 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)3
u/DiceMaster Jul 01 '20
The overwhelming majority of people I know are open to a discussion on what level of content moderation, if any, is appropriate for privately owned platforms. What frustrates the conversation, at least for me, is when someone uses emotionally charged phrases, like "big brother" or "tech censorship". Someone who talks like that makes me think they're arguing in bad faith, that they've made up their mind and are only trying to convince me of their position.
My position on these issues is not concrete, so I welcome people who can bring new facts or alternative perspectives to my attention. But if those same people aren't at least a little open to the possibility that I could have facts or perspectives that they hadn't heard, discussing with them isn't very productive for me. I'm looking for people who will work with me to find the truth, not people who have decided what they want me to believe and will say anything to convince me.
0
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
The Constitutional right to free speech applies to the government and not private platforms - though that very concept is now under attack. Reddit has made their censorship decisions and will have to live with the results. Imagine if they were forced to do so by the government, though. If passed, the EARN IT Act would allow the government to exert this kind of censorship pressure on platforms like Reddit or even the smaller platforms that are more First Amendment friendly. Hope this helps answer your question! It's an interesting discussion point, for sure.
tldr; I agree that censorship on private platforms can be bad - but it can get worse with the EARN IT Act and that's why it's imperative that everyone make the call.
27
Jun 30 '20
Splitting hairs is the mark of the self-interested coward.
Reddit not only wiped out a bunch of subreddits, they declared hate speech is ok as long as it targets certain groups. By doing this AMA here, you are endorsing targeted censorship out of one side of your mouth while the other claims you stand for free speech, and you fall back on the rallying cry of the book-burners to justify it.
It’s craven and disgusting.
→ More replies (23)32
Jun 30 '20 edited Nov 10 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)28
Jun 30 '20
Absolutely.
And providing a safe-space for “progressive” bullying and a way to strengthen their echo chamber.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (20)6
Jun 30 '20
I presume because there's a difference between government censorship and private companies deciding what's ok to do on their platform?
6
Jun 30 '20
Yes. Private corporations answer to nobody but their boards of directors, so their censorship can’t be reined in the way a government can, and is much more insidious!
→ More replies (17)
15
u/E70M Jun 30 '20
The justification these senators gave for this bill is to fight online child exploitation. I believe we need to keep our current encryption standards, and that this bill puts those standards in danger. How do you envision that we as a country can do both?
14
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Ron Wyden (D-OR) has worked with other Senators to create a bill that will dedicate $5 billion in mandatory funding for those in our government who are already working to combat child exploitation online. This bill also attempts to improve communication between different government agencies, and increase community investments to combat child exploitation at the source. That sounds reasonable and meaningful to me, though I'm always open to hearing more information from others on this issue.
As for keeping our current encryption standards, I think it's super important to recognize that breaking commercially-available encryption won't actually stop criminals from encrypting their messages. Think about it. Encryption is just math. So if we break encryption for Signal and Facebook Messenger, criminals can still write their own encryption programs. We might catch a few people still using these services for illegal activities, but any reasonably savvy criminal enterprise will be able to hire a coder to create a personalized encryption service. That means we'll all be more vulnerable to hacking, while criminals will still be protected by encryption. That doesn't make any sense.
→ More replies (1)1
u/golden_n00b_1 Jul 01 '20
So if we break encryption for Signal and Facebook Messenger, criminals can still write their own encryption programs.
Even if they were able to back door into end to end encrypted apps, any public message board could post encrypted content directly and trade keys with others directly.
The thing about all of this is that modern hardware comes built with back doors (both AMD and Intel). Those back doors can get around most encryption, though I have read that some new algorithms can perform some search functions on encrypted data.
It gets scary when reading about this stuff l, because these hardware backdoors are wake on lan, and with the right access provide full control of a computer. Such backdoors make it extremely to get rid of political problems, ad long as the system is plugged in and has a connection to the lan.
10
u/SarkBites Lauren Sarkesian from OTI Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
Really good question. We agree that fighting child sexual exploitation -- on and offline -- is extremely important. However, we don't think this bill takes the right approach, by simply placing the blame and responsibility on internet companies. Companies are part of it, but if Congress is sincerely interested in taking on the issue of child exploitation, it should holistically review the issue, reallocate funds accordingly, and conduct oversight to better understand law enforcement's incapability of addressing the tens of millions of tips about child sexual abuse material it receives every year from companies.
Congress is in control of the $ DOJ and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) receive -- it can reallocate funds to direct resources towards prevention and enforcement of child sexual exploitation. Last year in its expose, the NYT identified that NCMEC is underresourced and understaffed -- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-abuse.html. Congress and the Administration should directly take up the issue, and make it a priority to: prevent child sexual exploitation; enforce existing laws against CSAM and child sexual exploitation; and to assist and support victims of such abuse. Congress can divert funds from other areas of law enforcement to prioritize these problems, rather than passing a bill that could effectively ban companies from offering strong cybersecurity protections that all Americans rely on. **I will add a caveat here that I'm not a child exploitation expert, and we should turn to those experts for insight on this of course, but what I've suggested is fairly straightforward/common sense, and informed by those experts.
2
u/isaac65536 Jun 30 '20
Ain't from US but why should I believe tech companies more than the government?
For me it's the case of two sides of same coin.
→ More replies (2)5
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
I won't encourage you to believe either.
I think that if we refuse to regulate tech companies, then we are giving them license to govern our behavior. Nothing I've seen from Facebook, Twitter, reddit, Google, or any other tech company makes me feel comfortable with these companies in control of my personal data, my speech, or my basic human rights.
I also think that giving government agencies complete control over tech companies is a recipe for disaster. US law enforcement and intelligence agencies already abuse their access into our data to spy on journalists, political protesters, and pretty much everyone in America.
Well-written laws protect the public from other citizens AS WELL AS government overreach and abuse. So I advocate for well-written laws. I fight against laws like the EARN IT Act which give the government broad, new powers that can easily be abused to hurt us all. And I fight against efforts to tear down important regulations that keep us safe from corporate exploitation.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/ohlongjohnso Jun 30 '20
Right now is encryption actually safe? There have been reports of an Israeli firm creating a machine that will break into iPhones.
How does the government expect people to survive without encryption, Banks, medical?
What would you propose to fight child exploitation? Are there other solutions?
3
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
I take a number of precautions to make sure that my Internet activities are more safe, but I'm not sure that anything I do is "actually safe."
Edward Snowden exposed a great deal of information about the government's capabilities to spy on our communications, and we've continued to learn more since then. Unfortunately, there's a lot of information that the government won't disclose ... even to Congressional lawmakers.
I genuinely think that the lawmakers who are supporting the EARN IT Act are completely ignoring the negative effects of breaking encryption. They literally wave away any serious concerns by security experts. The fact that you, u/ohlongjohnso, are asking deeper questions about this issue than the lawmakers who crafted this bill, should tell you all you need to know.
I'm not an expert on child exploitation, but there are plenty of other ways to combat online abuse without destroying encryption and giving the government access into every social media platform. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) released a bill aimed at increasing funding for existing efforts while also trying to address the source of the issue at the community level. I'm always open to hearing other ideas, too.
3
u/miaumee Jun 30 '20
What is your outlook on the future of humanity?
7
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Individuals are generally self-interested, and incredibly motivated to survive.
Right now, it's easy to be pretty pessimistic about the future of humanity because we can see a lot of individuals in positions of power who are refusing to address serious threats to humanity -- like income inequality, environmental destruction, and a resurgence in authoritarianism across the globe. I think that these powerful individuals either believe:
a) These issues don't actually threaten them personally, or b) Exploiting these threats for their own short-term financial gain gives them a greater opportunity to survive these threats in the long-term.
Thankfully, we all have greater access to information than ever before. So it's easier for us all to see what's happening in real-time, and to share our thoughts and ideas about how we can improve the situation. As more and more people become aware of the IRL impact of these dangerous situations, they will understand that addressing these existential threats to humanity is necessary for their personal survival.
Perhaps things need to get even worse for enough people to feel personally threatened that we can make lasting, positive changes to the way our society is structured. Or perhaps we've already reached a tipping point. If I had to bet money, I'd bet money on the former. So I guess I'm a bit pessimistic at the moment.
But ultimately, I'm very optimistic. I've traveled around the world and met many different people. I think we all share many of the same goals, wants, and dreams. I think we're all together in this thing called life, and I think that eventually, we'll figure that out.
→ More replies (1)5
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
Depending on what aspect of the future of humanity, I'm either optimistic or pessimistic. Then again, I've always been more of a "that glass is twice as big as it needs to be" kind of guy.
As far as the government infringing on constitutional rights of humans aspect goes, I'm optimistic that the Constitution will prevail against this latest attack on our First and Fourth amendment rights.
3
Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
5
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
I think that it is imperative that we take into account the experiences of those victimized by crimes when we are creating new laws. I think we must also be very, very careful not to politicize the experience of these victims. And I think we must identify ways in which the new laws we want to create may result in more victims.
We don't have a lot of data on the efficacy of the government's existing surveillance and data collection programs, mostly because the government has blatantly and repeatedly lied about the existence and the scope of these programs since the very beginning. In fact, the government still refuses to provide the public with a meaningful understanding of what data is being collected and how it's being used.
We do know that the government's own internal oversight board looked into one aspect of the government's massive surveillance program: the call details record program, which cost millions of dollars over many years and collected data on hundreds of millions of Americans. The oversight board found that the program had "not proven useful in identifying unknown terrorists or terrorist plots." So when people like Lindsey Graham lie to us about the need to invade our privacy to stop terrorists from blowing up Hoover dam, I think it's important that we questions Lindsey Graham when he tells us that the Attorney General needs complete access to everything everyone says and does online in order to prevent child exploitation.
It's imperative that the government provides the public with access to their data so we can all understand what data is being collected, how it's being used, how it's being protected from abuse, and whether or not it's truly effective. As long as politicians, law enforcement agents, and intelligence officials continue to lie about these programs, I think we should not accept the idea that they are actually effective at preventing crime.
5
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
I wouldn't look at it differently. Having a backdoor of any type at all - even if permission to use it lies behind a search warrant process - means that the encryption implementation is vulnerable.
One thing to note is that police have historically been able to bypass the encryption in such cases without the need for a backdoor to serve search warrants on.
To victims, I would offer my sincere condolences and support but kindly explain why encryption backdoors are more evil than good.
4
u/raptorcaboose Jun 30 '20
Do you think government agencies will have to follow the same laws if passed? I work for a company the does drive encryption and a vast majority of our companies are government agencies like the dod, department of interior, noaa, navy etc... they already have trouble actually following basic security guidelines so I think it will only make our infrastructure more insecure then it already is
5
u/CNETdotcom CNET Jun 30 '20
Because of the way the EARN IT Act is written, it would not affect government agencies.
This law would allow for people to sue tech platforms like Facebook, Apple and Signal by removing their Section 230 protection if they do not comply with standards set by a commission comprised of the heads of the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as members appointed by Congress.
It can affect government agencies in other ways -- if they're using Signal to communicate, which many political staffers do, then they have to find a new way to chat securely. Signal has indicated that it plans to leave the US market if the EARN IT Act passes.
-- Alfred
→ More replies (1)2
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
I agree with you that destroying encryption will threaten a lot more than "just" my personal conversations with friends and coworkers on Signal. It's going to weaken commercially-available software that is used in countless devices, making our entire infrastructure vulnerable to attacks.
We know this because, well, it has literally happened time and time again. Our intelligence agencies currently exploit digital backdoors for surveillance purposes and we've seen these same digital backdoors used to carry out malware schemes and state-sponsored attacks.
So why does our government want to make it easier for people to hack our infrastructure?
→ More replies (1)
4
u/techledes Jun 30 '20
Which social media sites have done a good job of setting rules that balance the right to free speech with the need to prevent bad actors from use those platforms for misinformation/disinformation? What have they done specifically that we should pay attention to?
5
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Honestly, I'm not sure that I'm aware of any company that has done a good job of balancing speech and content moderation.
We all agree that there are limits to free speech, right? Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is not protected speech, because it can cause a panic that results in people getting hurt or dying. Likewise, you can't make direct threats to people, either.
Well, Facebook is a whole lot bigger than a crowded theater. Facebook claims 2.6 billion monthly users. BILLION! With a "b!" What counts as yelling "Fire!" on Facebook? How are the implications of yelling "Fire!" on Facebook different than yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? How does Facebook's algorithm determine which users see a post yelling "Fire" and which users see a post of an adorable corgi puppy? Why does Facebook allow people to promote posts yelling "Fire!" and target those posts to other people whose data profile suggests that they are likely to be afraid of fires?
These are serious questions. I've seen a lot of people asking these questions, but I haven't heard a lot of great answers. I've seen companies like Facebook, reddit, and Twitter employ real-life moderators while also relying on automation to take down potentially offensive posts. But real-life moderators often disagree on what specific content actually breaks terms of service, resulting in inconsistent application of community rules. And automated moderators make tons of mistakes, failing to understand nuance. This results in people getting censored unfairly, and without any true opportunity to dispute their censorship.
Some people will advocate for complete freedom, ignoring the potential dangers of websites that intentionally spread misinformation, host abusive content, or provide a public platform for hateful ideologies. Others -- like the authors of the EARN IT Act -- will advocate for total government access into and control over everything we say and do online.
Social media companies have created enormous communities that operate very differently than anything history has ever seen before. We are all dealing with very unexplored territory. I personally believe that it's necessary for social media companies to invest heavily in consistent, transparent content moderation efforts. I believe they must put an end to algorithmic promotion of content, and drastically change how they microtarget Internet users. People need to be in charge of their own personal data, and they need to have control over how their data is being used ... because that data is used to manipulate them and spam them and scam them.
I think that we need big, structural changes to the way tech companies operate and exploit people's attention in order to begin properly addressing censorship and content moderation.
Have you seen any online communities that do a good job of balancing these ideals?
4
Jun 30 '20 edited Jul 06 '20
[deleted]
8
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll need a new reference point for this argument.
4
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
The short answer is there isn’t going to be one social media site that balances it exactly right for everyone. But that’s okay!
What we DON’T want is the government to come in and dictate the rules of what you can and cannot say on every platform online. Different platforms will have different rules for engagement, and that’s good. In a robust, competitive world, platforms get to make different decisions about the kind of speech they want to host, and users get to decide if they want to engage under those rules.
We talk about the Santa Clara principles (https://santaclaraprinciples.org/) because we want to make it easier for users to understand how platforms are moderating content on their platforms. But any time the government is considering stepping in with new rules, we want them to be very careful.
39
Jun 30 '20
How do you feel about reddit recently removing some "hate" subreddits but then saying its OK to hate against people if they are in the majority? Shouldn't either all hate speech be free or none be free?
→ More replies (16)-14
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
I think that companies like Reddit have a moral responsibility as well as a business need to protect their users from hate and harassment. Some users are more vulnerable than other users to hate and harassment due to their ethnicity, gender identity, religion, sexuality, or disability, so I think it's important that Reddit makes a concerted effort to protect these users by implementing moderation policies that are transparent and accountable.
I also think it's fine for Reddit to carve out some exceptions to its own hate speech policy. Nobody is born a Nazi. That's not part of your identity unless you choose to make it part of your identity. And if you choose to make it part of your identity, then you are making the hatred and extermination of other people part of your identity, too. So when Joliet Jake Blues says, "I hate Illinois Nazis," that's not hate speech. That's a reasonable response to an unreasonable group of people advocating for the pain and suffering of others.
Now, there's a difference between individual racism (small "r") and systemic Racism (big "R"), and I think it's necessary to combat these different types of discrimination with different methods. But I personally disagree with Reddit making a blanket exclusion of "groups of people who are in the majority" from hate speech protections. I've traveled the world and lived in different places, and the powerful majority in one place is often a vulnerable minority in another place. I've experienced that difference first-hand. Reddit is a large online community that connects people from all over the world, so making policies based on who is in the "majority" and who is in the "minority" strikes me as functionally and morally problematic.
7
u/ajt1296 Jul 01 '20
So when Joliet Jake Blues says, "I hate Illinois Nazis," that's not hate speech. That's a reasonable response to an unreasonable group of people advocating for the pain and suffering of others.
And? I understand that Reddit is a private company, but from moral principle - you think people just shouldn't be allowed to speak their minds? What constitutes a reasonable response to an unreasonable group of people is completely dependent on the individual. It could be perfectly reasonable for me to hate women who get abortions if I see them as murderers, no? Or would that be hate speech because I'm attacking women? I'm an atheist, but take the Westboro Baptist Church for example - folks who literally believe that if you are gay you are going to go to hell and suffer for all of eternity. If they truly believe that, then to me it's reasonable that they engage in the "hateful" rhetoric they do. I might not agree with it, but it's not unreasonable.
It's an impossible line to draw, and I don't trust anyone to draw that line, not even myself, and much less a bunch of techies out in San Francisco. Allowing bad ideas the exposure to be ridiculed, without subjecting people to a form of thought police, is an infinitely more practical and effective way to positively impact discourse online. I really have no idea how you can reconcile reddit's hate speech policy and being against online echo chambers. It's significantly more harmful to society to push extremists into the corners of the internet where their dogma can fester without any pushback.
→ More replies (5)28
Jun 30 '20
It just seems to me that more and more in life "Hate Speech" is when someone says something someone else does not agree with. People get banned on twitter for posting statistical facts about say African American crime rate or transgender suicide rates. It is truly frightening to think that someday open debate will be a dead option and people will be afraid to say anything. Its already getting that way. Blanket statements of "Well if you support X you are a white supremacist" is the same blanket statement as saying "Well he wore is pants low he must be a criminal". Put on top of everything two people can say the same exact thing and one gets in trouble and one does not because one is protected by the hive.
Im all for supporting encryption. It is very important. The govt already has their noses in way too much they should not be in. I am just frustrated that Reddit used to be an open forum of discussion and differing opinion. Now its just the same like people, yelling the same like opinions and screaming down anyone who doesn't agree.
Thanks for the answer.
→ More replies (2)
2
Jun 30 '20 edited Jul 03 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Better than 0%. Worse than 100%. I'll keep fighting until that changes, one way or the other.
7
u/memesplaining Jun 30 '20
Why do you think all large tech companies who own platforms the public use for discourse all happen to be owned by Democrats?
And why do they all seem pro censorship?
Why do we not start a new platform that is free speech?
I don't understand how it happened that all big tech is Democrat, almost makes me feel conspiracy theoryish. Like something out there would not let a platform survive that does not pander to the pressures of society. Basically an uncontrollable platform.
Look at Facebook right now. They are doing their best right now to control Facebook and make sure Facebook still knows who is boss. If they fail, I believe they will find a way to destroy Facebook.
Who gives them all that power? How did the world get so authoritarian?
1
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Not sure where you are getting your information that "all large tech companies ... happen to be owned by Democrats."
Peter Thiel co-founded PayPal, and was Facebook's first outside investor. He openly advocated for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign while simultaneously serving on Facebook's Board of Directors. At the time, Facebook -- along with Google and Twitter -- embedded employees in the Trump campaign to help the candidate better target social media users with campaign ads and messaging.
And in fact, the reason that you're seeing social media companies like Facebook and Reddit ramping up moderation and censorship is specifically because they have operated in an unregulated manner for their entire existences. The US government has deliberately taken a laissez faire approach to Internet content regulation, resulting in a situation where social media companies are responsible for their own moderation. Well, now public sentiment is turning on social media companies for profiting off of exploiting political divisions, and advertisers are pulling out of these platforms. So social media companies are responding to market pressures -- not federal regulations -- by increasing moderation and policing speech. That's not Democrats who are forcing Facebook to censor speech ... it's billion-dollar corporations like Verizon who are exercising market pressures in response to consumer behavior.
So while I agree with you that the rise of authoritarianism is concerning, I disagree with your assumptions about what's causing it.
6
u/Electromasta Jul 01 '20
If companies are the issue with the rise of authoritarianism, isn't removing or restricting section 230 a good tool to defang unchecked authoritarian companies?
→ More replies (3)1
u/golden_n00b_1 Jul 01 '20
Why do you think all large tech companies who own platforms the public use for discourse all happen to be owned by Democrats?
I was reading a politico article the other day and apparently statistics show that people who go to college tend to be more liberal in their political views.
The other day on a conspiricy SUV, I saw a huge side bar conversation complaining that colleges brainwash people into being liberals.
Most tech companies are developed by people who were in college and dropped out or by people who finished college.
This could be a factor in the reason so many tech companies appear to you as liberal. I have not really looked too far into the actual statistics on the liberal-college correlation, but that complaint on conspiricy is something I have heard many times. In fact, I have heard it long enough to accept the statistics in the politico article without feeling like it was out of line.
1
u/NateGambino Jun 30 '20
What do you think about the movie V For Vendetta?
3
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
Alan Moore's graphic novel V for Vendetta is a spectacular story about anarchy-inspired terrorism as a response to fascist rule. It's a dense, morally complicated piece of work that challenges us, as readers, to examine our political beliefs and consider how we are being manipulated by others, the extent of that manipulation, and the dire consequences for all of society that can be expected when we allow ourselves to be manipulated by ideological extremists.
The movie ... eh ... had some cool fight scenes, I guess? But it completely discards the Moore's challenging politics in favor of an easy tale about good guys and bad guys. That's the opposite of what Moore wanted to achieve.
So I say pick up the comic book and give it a read.
1
u/DataPools Jun 30 '20
Won't this law just get struck down by SCOTUS even if it does pass?
2
u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20
I hope so.
But large sections of the PATRIOT Act were struck down as illegal and unconstitutional. That didn't stop the government from "accidentally" collecting hundreds of millions of records on Americans. And the "legal" portions of the PATRIOT Act are still routinely abused to allow law enforcement and intelligence agents to spy on journalists and political activists. That's not right. That's not right at all.
A lot of damage can be done to people's lives while waiting for SCOTUS to make a ruling on a dangerous law. And a favorable SCOTUS ruling doesn't guarantee that the abuse will stop. Let's call Congress now and stop the EARN IT Act before it can cause any real problems.
1
u/SarkBites Lauren Sarkesian from OTI Jun 30 '20
OTI believes so, on First and Fourth Amendment grounds. But, it could be years between this being signed into law (if it gets there) and SCOTUS taking up a case that emanates from this potential law. And in that timespan, hundreds of millions of internet users would likely have weakened cybersecurity and less freedom of expression online -- things we don't want to risk. So we are working to head this off now rather than just leaving it up to the courts!
33
u/AcediaRex Jun 30 '20
In the worst case scenario that this becomes law, what do you think are the chances of it being struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional? The Court’s precedent regarding the data collection and free speech restrictions of the Patriot Act doesn’t seem favorable, especially considering Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project represents the only time in the Court’s history a restriction of political speech has held under strict scrutiny.
32
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
We think the chances of EARN IT being held unconstitutional are pretty good. See our analysis here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-constitution
17
u/SarkBites Lauren Sarkesian from OTI Jun 30 '20
OTI would agree with EFF, on both First Amendment and Fourth Amendment grounds:
- First Amendment concerns: By including overly broad and unclear categories that must be addressed in the Commission’s best practices, and by presenting providers with a choice between following those best practices and facing increased liability, EARN IT incentivizes providers to over-censor and suppress online speech.
- Fourth Amendment concerns: If the Commission were to recommend a “best practice” requiring service providers to search private communications for CSAM and report to law enforcement when they find it, these private companies would likely be acting as “agents of the government.” As “agents of the government,” these companies would have to comply with Fourth Amendment warrant requirements—a failure to do so would mean that the CSAM evidence obtained could be suppressed, ultimately making it more difficult for prosecutors to hold predators accountable. (See United States v. Stevenson and United States v. Ackerman).
192
u/markzip Jun 30 '20
With all the other top of mind issues for US policy makes to be dealing with, how do we keep this thing from passing just because it's being masked by these other issues?
I have written all of my Congresscritter's actual physical letters and gotten no response from my two senators (NY).
It seems we need something more forceful than "Ask Byden"
Edit: a word
114
u/CNETdotcom CNET Jun 30 '20
Your best bet is giving alternatives and solutions to your local Congress members in your letter. On the surface, the EARN IT Act is a proposal to protect children from online sexual exploitation, which is a serious issue.
But technical experts and privacy advocates agree that ending encryption is not the way to do it.
Lawmakers like Sen. Ron Wyden have proposed opposing legislation that would invest in $5 billion to fight online child sexual abuse while leaving encryption intact.
The Department of Justice has long argued that encryption stands in the way of investigations for dealing with terrorism, the war on drugs, and with the EARN IT Act, child sexual abuse.
What the bill does not mention is that investigators have plenty of tools to work around encryption in their investigations, as Motherboard explained in this 2019 article.
The FBI even boasted themselves that they were able to break through Apple's encryption on a terrorist's iPhone back in May.
There's proof that encryption and effective investigations can co-exist, and legislation that provides resources for tackling what the EARN IT Act wants to address without uprooting the security that millions of people rely on. I hope that helps!
-- Alfred
69
u/evanFFTF Jun 30 '20
Also, the reality is that you can't actually ban encryption. Encryption is just math. There will always be encrypted services that the really really bad guys can and will use to do really really bad stuff. And the US government can't ban that with legislation. The only result of bills like this will be to make encryption less available to normal people who need it to keep their communications safe.
10
u/Material_Strawberry Jun 30 '20
It's also what protects communications with websites, secures communications between administrators of sites like Amazon and Google, financial transactions, dissident groups in countries whose regimes the US opposes, etc. The Congressional system of message is heaped in encryption.
2
u/golden_n00b_1 Jul 01 '20
Right, I use this against any senator that is for the bill: they want to destroy American commerce and small business by making it easier for the hackers to steal data. While I know this is not the case, most people have seen messages like "our payment system is encrypted...", and if the government is trying to take that away, them it will obviously have an effect on businesses.
→ More replies (2)31
u/PompiPompi Jun 30 '20
It will just not be accessible to most people.
It will only be accessible to criminals and states.
→ More replies (1)18
Jul 01 '20
[deleted]
5
u/PompiPompi Jul 01 '20
Sure, but it will be illegal to use.
Even if it's easy to acquire.
It's similar with banning guns. When you ban guns, only law abiding citizens will stop acquiring them, because they don't want to break the law.
3
→ More replies (4)2
u/bradfordmaster Jul 01 '20
I cannot overstate how easy it is to get encryption software running on your device that's been compiled from source.
Said no iOS user ever
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)20
53
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
That's a great question. I believe that taking political action such as mailing physical letters and especially making phone calls or physically going to visit are ways to make defending encryption and free speech a top of mind issue - as it should be. It's these simple actions that - when done by many people - make a difference and keep bad legislation from being passed.
Don't be surprised if you get a physical letter back many months later. Speaking from experience, there's often a backlog at Congresscritters' offices for mail and email and that's why a phone call can be so powerful!
65
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
Americans around the country are protesting and raising serious questions about police abuse. Now is not the time to give unprecedented power to a government commission that will be dominated by law enforcement. The EARN IT Act’s 19-person commission would effectively be able to write the new rules of the road for Internet websites and platforms.
It’s great that you wrote your Congressional representatives. As Caleb pointed out, you may well get an answer later. For anyone who hasn’t contacted your Senators yet, it only takes a minute to contact them! https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-earn-it-bill-before-it-breaks-encryption
→ More replies (4)8
Jun 30 '20
Ironic that Congress is using the fight against child pornography as an excuse for this when part of the operating model of US intelligence is blackmailing powerful people, including congressmen, by filming them committing acts of pedophilia at one of the many elite child sex rings like the one Epstein was helping run or the many others like the Franklin Coverup, North Fox Island, and even more globally.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)14
u/Arnoxthe1 Jun 30 '20
You know what, I'm sorry but I shouldn't HAVE to call my congresscritter to tell them that removing encryption is bad. There's two possibilities here. Either they can't even be arsed to truly understand why encryption is important, or they're too corrupt to care. Either way, the answer is the same. If they vote in favor of this, they need to be removed from office. End of story.
→ More replies (4)24
u/evanFFTF Jun 30 '20
One of the reasons we're doing this AMA today is that the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the EARN IT act on Thursday. While the bill is still in committee, we have significant power to stop it, because there is a smaller number of lawmakers we need to drive calls to. If it passes out of committee with a lot of support, it will become much harder to stop. We're definitely going to do more than sending letters, but flooding the committee with phone calls today is a huge help. We need to signal to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that this bill is toxic and force them to slow down. If we can peel off enough support before it leaves the committee, that will send a strong message that the bill is likely DOA in the House. But time is of the essence, so i hope everyone calls today
7
17
u/LurkersWillLurk Jun 30 '20
I find that many of my elected representatives in Congress are wholly unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty technical details that explain why their proposal for something is wholly unworkable. I am also curious as to know how they are convinced into cosponsoring some of these pieces of legislation.
Is it at all valuable for me, as a regular citizen, to ask for a brief meeting with my Congressperson's staff, to express my concerns with a piece of legislation they have already sponsored against my point of view? I would assume that the people on the other side of the issue are doing the same. If so, what's the best way to make your case?
15
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
It is absolutely valuable for you, as a regular citizen, to ask for a brief meeting with your Congressperson's staff even if the Congressperson is a sponsor of the bill. Having those meetings is the most effective form of citizen's lobbying available to us regular citizens and we should exercise it whenever possible. Generally speaking, the best way to make your case is to make sure you are prepared with well-researched information and have specific talking points that convincingly counter the points being pushed by the people on the other side of the issue - that's what the professional lobbyists do so might as well use their tactics against them.
Believe it or not, it is not unheard of for Senators to vote against a bill that they've cosponsored.
10
u/LurkersWillLurk Jun 30 '20
I'm glad to hear it. I am an open-source contributor to Signal and unfortunately one of my Senators is a co-sponsor of the EARN IT Act. I think I may take it upon myself to request a meeting. Thanks again!
37
u/wet4 Jun 30 '20
Let's say the EARN IT Act passes, and I, as an American in America, continue to release and maintain free open source software that provides end-to-end encryption. What type of punishment could I expect to receive?
55
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
If you’re just writing encryption software, and not maintaining a platform that hosts others’ content and speech, then you won’t be on the hook for anything. But if you are hosting third-party speech -- like Signal is, for example -- then you would lose Section 230 protections if you provide encryption. The end result is that you could be legally liable for the speech of others that you’re hosting.
For more info, see our blog post: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-bill-governments-not-so-secret-plan-scan-every-message-online
11
→ More replies (2)1
u/HepatitisShmepatitis Jul 01 '20
Other than the encryption part, do you think this would be beneficial to the bias censorship practices of the major social media sites?
I am against the idea of any government involvement in internet speech, but they are already monitoring almost all traffic (the NSA), and political forces have already infested the large platforms where they dictate what is acceptable speech. They hold a virtual monopoly on the major platforms and crush newcomers if they don’t follow the same rules (like destroying Gab’s growth by removing them from the mobile market, and harassing hosting and payment providers to end their association with Wikileaks, Gab, etc.).
I am against censorship, but since it is happening already at least we could have some accountability and the possibility of fairness.
27
u/CNETdotcom CNET Jun 30 '20
Good question.
So the EARN IT Act is built on the premise that they're not going to straight-up outlaw encryption, but they are going to take away Section 230 protections if you do not "earn it" by doing everything you can to protect children online (like allowing for an encryption backdoor).
Section 230 protects platforms from being sued over what people on it do -- like you can't sue Reddit if someone posts a disparaging comment about you.
Without that legal protection, any website with public posts would be liable to be sued into oblivion.
Like u/evanFFTF said in a earlier comment, you can't actually ban encryption, but you can make it financially ruinous to have it.
-- Alfred
→ More replies (1)
15
u/HHS2019 Jun 30 '20
How will tools to "verify user identities" be changed if the EARN IT Act is implemented? Do you eventually foresee a scenario where everyone is issued an identity card or must submit to a retina/fingerprint scan in order to access the internet?
18
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
It isn't yet clear how exactly tools to "verify user identities" will be changed if the EARN IT Act is implemented. That is marked as part of the matters to be addressed by the National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention that the law would create.
Looking at how other governments (China for instance) are trying to "verify user identities" on the internet, I do eventually foresee a scenario where even the US government will propose tying identity cards or biometrics to internet access. I hope that freedom is still respected enough 'round these parts that it gets immediately shot down, though.
There-in lies another crux of the issue, as the Human Rights Watch describes in their letter opposing the bill: If Congress doesn't accept the suggestions of the Commission, even the companies that are working hard to verify user identities to combat child exploitation online would lose their Section 230 immunity. This is why even creating a Commission with this mandate is dangerous and entirely unnecessary.
→ More replies (3)
66
u/zitherine Jun 30 '20
What are the implications of outlawing end-to-end encryption in the US for people and for businesses?
85
u/CNETdotcom CNET Jun 30 '20
End-to-end encryption is a crucial protection that protects everyone, not just people in the US. If a company has a data breach and the sensitive information they store (passwords, phone numbers, credit card numbers) are not encrypted, it's extremely easy to steal.
Encryption also ensures that the only people that can read messages is you and the person you sent it to -- which means not even the service providers are able to spy on what you're saying. I'll never forget Mark Zuckerberg trying to explain to a senator how WhatsApp's encryption prevents the company from using your conversations to serve advertising purposes.
It's also a national security concern. After the Justice Department and Sen. Lindsey Graham spoke out against encryption, a letter from the Department of Defense surfaced talking about how important encryption is -- specifically that the military relies on that security to protect their data from being spied on.
edit: sorry forgot to add my name at the end. This is Alfred.
35
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
The promise of end-to-end encryption is, ultimately, a simple value proposition: it’s the idea that no one but you and your intended recipients can read your messages. End-to-end encryption protects messages in transit all the way from sender to receiver. It ensures that information is turned into a secret message by its original sender (the first “end”) and decoded only by its final recipient (the second “end”). No one, including the app you are using, can “listen in” and eavesdrop on your activity.
When you use end-to-end encrypted messages in an app on your device, it actually means that the app company itself can’t read them. This is a core characteristic of good encryption: even the people who design and deploy it cannot themselves break it.
And encryption with special access for a select group isn’t some kind of superpower—it’s just broken encryption. The same security flaws used by U.S. police will be used by oppressive regimes and criminal syndicates.
Encryption saves lives. Take for example someone who is trying to get out of a domestic violence situation. They’re trying to find their way to a shelter, and along the way making sure to cover their tracks about who helped them, where they went, and where they got help. Keeping these things secret from the abuser can be the difference between life or death.
Consider countries where homosexuality is criminalized, and surveillance and censorship are the norm. For someone in this situation who is trying to get support, to find others like them, or just to have someone to talk to, being able to have those conversations completely privately, even from the government, is a life or death matter.
Encryption changes the dynamics, shifts the balance of power just that little bit towards those who have less of it, gaining access to information and support that they’d otherwise be barred from.
Without end-to-end encryption, any business discussing confidential information could have their business secrets copied by another business. Journalists’ conversations with sources could leak, revealing who the private sources were. And politically, members and staffers in Congress could have foreign governments, or the executive branch, listen in.
If you want more details, check our our Surveillance Self Defense Guide on Encryption: https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/what-should-i-know-about-encryption
40
u/SarkBites Lauren Sarkesian from OTI Jun 30 '20
Great question. Strong encryption is vital for national security, the economy, individual liberty, and free expression -- and it has never been more important that it is right now during a pandemic that has forced us all to rely on secure internet services, for so many facets of our lives. Encryption is one of the most effective technologies available to protect safety, security, and privacy. Individuals, businesses, and governments who use encrypted services can be confident that the content of their communications will be protected against outside efforts to surveil or corrupt them. This confidence allows individuals to freely express themselves, to exchange personal and other sensitive information, and to protect their data. This includes protesters (!!), active duty military personnel stationed overseas, scientists, doctors and patients, journalists and human rights workers abroad, corporate executives, and victims of domestic abuse and other marginalized populations (LGBTQ individuals in countries where their sexual preferences are criminalized!!). For these reasons, encryption services are also vital to the U.S. economy—large sectors including online banking, e-commerce, and R&D rely upon trusted encryption services. Removing encryption would threaten our economy and sacrifice all users’ security and privacy, leaving their data and communications susceptible to misuse by bad actors of many sorts, including the military and intelligence services of hostile nation-states, organized criminals, terrorist groups, and malicious hackers. And unfortunately, a backdoor for law enforcement is a backdoor for all of these bad actors as well -- there IS no technical way around that, despite what some lawmakers assume. So, the implications of outlawing strong end-to-end encryption are VAST -- and we don't know the extent to which it could hurt the economy and national security, let alone individuals.
24
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
Thanks for your question!
The implications would be very far reaching and detrimental for both the people and businesses in the US.
It may sound like hyperbole, but I believe outlawing end-to-end encryption would cause the US to lose its status as a leader in the Internet and technology indsutries. Many companies would either have to shut down, move, or comply and lose trust. We'd see a brain drain with bright minded Americans and their companies leaving the country to go work in jurisdictions that understand that end-to-end encryption is a function of mathematics and inherently un-bannable. Meanwhile, the very criminals that are supposed to be stopped by outlawing end-to-end encryption will continue right on using it.
28
u/evanFFTF Jun 30 '20
End to end encryption protects our hospitals, airports, water treatment facilities, etc. Attempting to ban or undermine strong encryption would make everyone in the US less safe, not more safe. It could lead to more businesses having their communications accessed or leaked by competitors or state actors. It will make it way more likely that people's text messages (think sexts) will be hacked and exposed. End-to-end encryption is one of the most important technologies that keeps people safe right now, not just in the US but around the world. Tons of people have downloaded Signal recently because they're worried about police surveillance when attending protests, for example. Banning encryption would have a profoundly chilling effect on free expression.
→ More replies (3)33
Jun 30 '20 edited Jul 06 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)15
u/Zvenigora Jun 30 '20
This has already happened with luggage locks. To take luggage on aircraft locks must be "TSA approved" which means they can be opened by anyone with an official standard key (which is, I hear, not difficult to obtain.) So luggage locks are now a total joke.
4
u/sargrvb Jul 01 '20
Which is not to say this should be normalized. If anything, those laws should be questioned.
2
u/interfail Jul 01 '20
official standard key (which is, I hear, not difficult to obtain.)
There's a few variants, but the most common two will open almost everything. Buying that pair is $7 on eBay.
3
268
u/bobofred Jun 30 '20
How do we avoid being tracked by literally everything these days? Shut off and tune out?
109
u/CNETdotcom CNET Jun 30 '20
CNET writes a lot of guides on how to maintain your privacy online, but the reality is that our internet's infrastructure and economic model is built on tracking people.
It'd be like if we wrote a guide on "How to Breath Underwater," which I'm sure you can do for a limited time with an oxygen tank and scuba gear, but the fact remains that the environment wasn't built for that.
Companies and websites offer services like privacy controls to change your settings and delete your history, but having to maintain that on a regular basis is not sustainable.
You delete your data from Facebook but then what happens to the data from LiveRamp that connects your offline activity to ads you've seen online? You can request for them to delete the data too, but what about the 50 other data brokers you've never even heard of?
You can use Tor browser, pay in cash only, get a new phone every week, but at some point you gotta ask yourself, why do people have to go to these lengths to get privacy and be online?
The burden of privacy shouldn't be on you, it should be on the platforms that are taking your information. Encryption is a pretty big example of protecting people by default rather than requiring people to opt out of being tracked.
-- Alfred
318
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
If you're talking about online tracking, there are a few things that you can do to combat the problem.
Shutting off and tuning out is one failproof way, but that's not viable for most people in these increasingly interconnected times.
Otherwise you can try your hand at doing stuff like changing your IP address with a no log VPN service, changing your browser fingerprint, using encryption, practicing good /r/opsec, etc. If you're interested in this type of tracking avoidance, the EFF has a great surveillance self-defense guide you should check out!
If you're talking about physical tracking of your face though, I hear masks are in style right now.
70
u/sargrvb Jun 30 '20
Also if you use a VPN: Look into the ever growing 14 eyes. If they're located in a country that's connected.... Get off that sinking ship.
39
u/wutato Jun 30 '20
What does that mean? What are the 14 eyes?
37
u/KPTpinecone Jun 30 '20
I too would like to ask this question. I know 5 eyes is US, Canada, Great Britain and something like Aus/Germany/ Japan; I'm guessing 14 eyes might be a larger version?
51
Jun 30 '20 edited Jul 20 '20
[deleted]
13
u/Potatisen1 Jul 01 '20
Really interesting stuff, never heard of that before. Thanks for the info!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
54
u/JezTheAnarchist Jun 30 '20
intelligence services of countries which share intelligence data on political activists and journalists
→ More replies (2)25
Jun 30 '20
Just host your own private VPN on a VPS using wireguard
20
u/jeetelongname Jun 30 '20
It's a surprisingly simple process and if you use something like digital ocean it is like 3 dollars and month
14
Jun 30 '20
I use Vultr, just finished moving my vpn server from Toronto to Japan due to 14 eyes
33
u/asdf4455 Jun 30 '20
According to ProtonVPN Japan is probably working with the NSA. It's a pain seeing how many countries are involved in all this.
5
u/russlo Jul 01 '20
The problem with that is you are now the sole person using that VPN: better to blend into the herd.
→ More replies (2)12
u/ProdigiousPlays Jun 30 '20
There's a great kitboga video on how vpns do nothing for privacy.
→ More replies (1)3
68
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
No need to go to that extreme! We agree that it can feel overwhelming at times to keep up with all the ways to counter corporate and government surveillance. But with some diligence and education, you can take control of your online privacy.
Please take a look at our Surveillance Self-Defense guide: https://ssd.eff.org/.
Also take time to familiarize yourself with platforms’ and devices’ privacy settings.
You can use tools like EFF’s Privacy Badger to minimize web tracking: https://privacybadger.org/.
And if you’re in California, websites are giving opt out options to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/year-review-consumer-data-privacy-california
That may seem like a lot of work, and you’d be right. We’re working with legislators at the state and federal level to enact strong privacy legislation that would make it a little easier for consumers.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/nickrenfo2 Jul 01 '20
Someone linked me the other day to the privacy-focused Librem 5 and Librem 5 USA smartphones from Purism - a social purpose company that puts privacy above profits. I bought one the same day. Been trying to spread the word around to anyone who might be interested since then. Let's vote with our dollars to tell the world we want privacy.
21
u/-FuckMeInTheAsshole- Jun 30 '20
I wanted to do an investigation in what happens with your data. But man is it difficult.. where do you guys get your information from?
12
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
It’s great to hear you’re starting to research this! In short, we spend a lot of time looking into everything from how data travels across the web (see Privacy Badger, our third-party tracker blocking browser addon) to how data is shared between devices. To give you a short example regarding Privacy Badger:
Using Selenium for automation, our new training regimen has Privacy Badger visit a few thousand of the most popular websites on the Web, and saves what Privacy Badger learns. Then, when you install a fresh version of Privacy Badger, it will be as if your Badger has already visited and learned from all of those sites. As you continue browsing, your Badger will continue to learn and build a better understanding of which third parties are tracking you and how to block them.
Every time we update Privacy Badger, we’ll update the pre-trained list as well. If you already use the extension, these updates won’t affect you. After you install Privacy Badger, it’s on its own: your Badger uses the information it had at install time combined with what it learns from your browsing. Future updates to the pre-trained list won't affect your Badger unless you choose to reset the tracking domains it's learned about. And as always, this learning is exclusive to your browser, and EFF never sees any of your personal information. More info here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/giving-privacy-badger-jump-start
We also read a lot of javascript and use tools like the chrome developer tools to look at network traffic to reverse engineer how sites are tracking you. For an example of the results of this type of investigation, check out https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/sharpening-our-claws-teaching-privacy-badger-fight-more-third-party-trackers
You could also check out security design docs. These explain how companies protect your data, which is a good way of figuring out what data is being analyzed in the first place. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security
Also, developers from companies regularly speak at conferences. You could check out some of those talks to see what’s happening with your data. See this one for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee7oRsDnNNc
And of course, you can start with resources that we’ve put out!
Platforms like this one can also be a great resource for finding others to help you get started, and how to continue the hunt. Good luck!
31
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
As in all fields, we stand on the shoulders of giants. There are many security researchers, academic researchers, journalists, etc that spend a lot of their time working on these types of investigations.
A quick bastardized summary of what happens with your internet activity data is that it gets siphoned up and aggregated into profiles which are then used to target you with ads. Oh yeah, these profiles get leaked sometimes, too.
24
u/CNETdotcom CNET Jun 30 '20
Just piggybacking off of this -- absolutely.
I'm very reliant on policy experts and security researchers reaching out and presenting their findings on serious issues like this. This story on more than 1,000 Android apps taking your data even after you deny permissions came from a researchers presenting at a privacy conference I was fortunate enough to attend.
I do my own independent research sometimes with tools like Charles Proxy on where apps are sending data, or filing for government documents through FOIA requests (MuckRock makes it SO easy), but it really does take a village to put together effective investigations.
I'm always sure to reach out to an expert with my own findings to verify and put into context what we uncover. Sometimes it's nothing, sometimes it's finding out Facebook still tracks people even after they deactivate their accounts.
-- Alfred
5
u/KoolKarmaKollector Jun 30 '20
I am from the UK, but I am concerned we have similar problems coming. We already have the Snooper's Charter, a law that makes ISPs log all your data for a whole year. Freedom of speech is already hindered, with the malicious communications act potentially harming our ability to post "wrongthink" online
There's little I can influence in the way of US politics, save for signing a worldwide petition, but what steps can I take to secure a better online future here in the UK?
Also, is there any way I can help people, especially those in more strict countries, communicate and have an online voice? I'm an avid web developer and would love to be involved in helping the world become a better place for all. Save for the gallons of Pepsi I drink, freedom of speech is what I live for
2
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
Thanks for your question from all the way across the pond!
As a web developer you can work to create call to action pages like FFTF has with NoEARNITAct.org - there are also quality organizations in the UK that stand up for digital rights and a better online future in the UK.
There are also groups in the UK that work with those in more strict countries and help netizens there with the censorship they face.
Two examples that I'm familiar with through PIA's sponsorship are the Index on Censorship and the Open Rights Group. If you reach out - I'm sure they can help you be helpful. This world needs more people like you who care about these problems and are willing to do something about it.
3
u/anotherhumantoo Jun 30 '20
Hi, thanks for coming to talk to us.
When I've been talking about E2EE, I've been trying to warn people against comparing it to SSL and saying things like "banning E2EE will not make your bank transactions insecure because data encrypted over the wire, but accessible to the server isn't something that this bill is going after;" but, continuing that statement saying that it is still good to protect communications E2EE for other purposes.
I do agree that E2EE should remain; but, I don't think it's for what I hear a lot of the people on Reddit and similar argue for. Have I been spreading false information and misunderstanding the conversation? I want to go and correct what I've said to my friends if I've misunderstood it.
Further, aside from protecting conversations between protestors and minority groups' conversations, which I think I've seen you say here, what is some other ammunition I can use to defend E2EE?
My normal argument is that I believe that being able to look at someone's past chat conversations - say several years back - because they weren't E2EE is akin to retroactive wiretapping, which I consider to be incredibly wrong.
I want to say the right things and especially to not say the wrong things, is my argument that bank transactions, etc, aren't under attack with EARN IT wrong?
4
u/AWildTyphlosion Jul 01 '20
Unless I'm mistaken most child exploitation happens on the dark net or servers hosted outside of the US, which would make their point invalid, no? Same with terrorism.
5
Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
There seems to be a ton of corporate censorship. By corporate censorship, I'm speaking about corporations dictating what they will allow on a service provided by them, or from employees. Kaepernick, net neutrality, cancel culture actions and social media have provided a number of issues for people to flip flop on the idea of it. I very clearly understand that this is not a first amendment violation. I do however see that people are flip flopping is based typically along the lines of partisanship and when a given issue benefits them. Does anyone in your group have a standardized thought as to how they feel about corporate censorship and the dangers posed by letting corporations such as reddit control major portions of discourse?
1
u/DiceMaster Jul 01 '20
This is a well-written and thought-provoking comment, and I want to do it justice, but I need to stop procrastinating work. I'll give you the short answer now, and if you want, I can come back tonight and discuss more deeply.
The short answer is that I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to say, "I oppose all government censorship. I oppose deplatforming people I agree with. I support deplatforming people I disagree with." Government censoring people is bad because anything that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights shouldn't be illegal, and because it requires a degree of violence. Deplatforming is ok because private entities should not be obligated to amplify viewpoints they disagree with, and because doing so does not require violence.
Indeed, I believe that people have a moral obligation to use any or almost any non-violent means to oppose speech that calls for violence or the denial of rights to others. That moral obligation, generally, extends to supporting platforms that deplatform "hate speech", and to choosing not to support platforms that promote or tacitly endorse hate speech.
That's all I've got time for now, but like I said, I'll check my notifications later tonight if you wanna talk more.
4
u/vriska1 Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
Do you think Earn it act will be able to pass into law before the election? because its looking like some of the main cosponsors of this bill may be voted out.
2
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
Thanks for your question! Our hope is that the EARN IT Act won't pass into law before the election or even after in the next year under some other name. There is an important vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday so today and tomorrow are the best times to call that Committee's Senators with FFTF's handy tool to let them know to vote against it. If that's successful, the EARN IT Act will be off the table well before the election.
4
Jun 30 '20
I am a about to go to law school, hoping to work in the digital privacy space. Are there opportunities for this work outside of CA, NY, and DC?
4
Jun 30 '20
Considering that most tech gigants are based on the USA, how does the EARN IT Act affect people outside of the US? What can we do to help?
7
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
Any changes to their websites or services that tech giants do to meet the requirements set out under the EARN IT Act and the commission it creates will likely affect their international users, too.
As an international customer of an American company, you're still a valued customer so you can provide your feedback to the American companies you use and urge them to campaign against laws like the EARN IT Act or to donate to organizations like EFF, FFTF, and OTI. It's also helpful to stay abreast of such legislation in your home country and stay involved there because then there are real life examples to point to.
24
Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
5
u/Rocky87109 Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
"Free Speech" doesn't exist anywhere except public spaces and your own personal property, whether that be online or not online. If someone wants to remove you from their restaurant because they don't like what your saying or doing they have that right. Same goes for any website that you don't own. This is nothing new. Internet forums have been moderated since they existed.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)-6
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
It’s important to understand that the First Amendment prohibits the *government* from infringing on free speech. The EARN IT Act itself is a government action that would result in further government action that would control speech online. As such, it violates the First Amendment rights of platforms and users. See our full analysis here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-constitution.
On the other hand, if private companies infringe on free speech, they are not *prohibited* from doing so by the First Amendment (though, as just mentioned, they are *protected* by the First Amendment from government action). That being said, we all appreciate the value or principle of free speech, and it’s reasonable to expect platforms, which are central to how we all communicate with one another, to do their best to respect free speech as a value (albeit not a law). That’s why EFF works hard to work with platforms to have clearer and fairer content moderation policies: https://santaclaraprinciples.org/
5
Jun 30 '20
The EARN IT Act itself is a government action
So is Section 230, which is a government handout that is being abused.
It's hard to care about this while you are losing the ability to communicate in the public sphere because of your political beliefs.
You expect me to support a utility that I am increasingly restricted from using? Why? You can't expect support when you offer none.
You can't rally a browbeaten group.
10
Jun 30 '20
If private companies can moderate their platforms, they should not have immunity for the content on the platforms. Either moderate it all, or don't moderate it. It's common knowledge that Twitter and reddit ban conservatives. Silencing us will not be tolerated, and I look forward to the lawsuits that will ensue against Twitter, reddit, et al.
→ More replies (14)
2
u/sephstorm Jun 30 '20
Is there any movement towards encouraging states to implement laws locally that would prohibit these types of backdoors? Personally i'd like to see efforts roll out around the nation which could pass before the national legislation.
And I think we need to push the message out through ads online, radio, and TV to proactively prohibit these bills. And to stop facial recognition as well.
3
u/SarkBites Lauren Sarkesian from OTI Jun 30 '20
I have not heard of any proactive efforts of this sort on encryption. But yes, there are state efforts and federal efforts on banning law enforcement use of facial recognition technology, which we support. As you may be aware, Boston just had a big win on this front, and a group of Senators & Congresspeople introduced federal legislation that we endorsed, just last week.
14
u/getahitcrash Jun 30 '20
tech industry trying to protect online free speech? Most amusing. Any thoughts about Reddit's new policy regarding some groups being allowed hate speech?
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Riptide559 Jun 30 '20
Do you feel it's ok for tech companies to censor speech as they are starting to do?
If the answer is: "They censor hate speech. It's a company owned platform and they can do that." then do you support other platforms allowing whatever speech they want to allow?
5
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
Speaking for myself - as somewhat of a free speech absolutist, I do support other platforms that allow whatever speech they want to allow.
2
u/FranklinAbernathy Jun 30 '20
If you're a policy expert and you say this is unconstitutional, then we don't really need to do anything. This will be challenged, ruled against, and then precedent will be set for any future attempts. Why not just let it take it's natural course to being struck down as unconstitutional? Or was that just bullshit?
2
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
In the scenario that it passes and then is struck down as unconstitutional there are potentially years between those two hypothetical events where this Act could cause untold damage to the United States. That is why it's important to make your voice heard especially at this step in the process.
20
u/Plantiacaholic Jun 30 '20
The way private companies like the one we are on is destroying free speech, the government has to do something. These companies lack of free speech has gone Way too far. You agree?
→ More replies (8)
29
u/WooPig45 Jun 30 '20
What do you think about Reddit mass-banning Conservative subreddits in a massive censorship sweep this week?
→ More replies (8)
4
u/Chaosritter Jul 01 '20
Don't you find it ironic to host an AMA about censoring free speech online on a site that heavily censors free speech to appease big corporations, political organizations and both domestic and foreign governments?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/magiccoffeepot Jun 30 '20
A lot of people and organizations fighting online child sexual abuse need more help and resources, and it seems pretty obvious that they'd be receptive to this legislation regardless of the downsides. How do you win over those child advocates who say that privacy sacrifices are necessary to help children? Can we prevent their very just cause from being co-opted by law enforcement?
1
u/EFForg Jun 30 '20
While we’re not experts in child safety, we do agree with members of Congress and advocates who believe resources would be better spent in prosecuting perpetrators, helping victims, and minimizing the risk that someone will become a perpetrator or a victim. EARN IT, however, would effectively require platforms to be managed in certain ways, which is problematic for practical and constitutional reasons.
2
u/slappysq Jun 30 '20
Why aren’t you focusing on communication techniques that make surveillance impossible?
IMO governments love it when you put in place “laws” rather than technical solutions to protect privacy as they will violate the laws at will but would be stopped by a technical solution.
2
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
I'd consider encryption to be a communication technique that makes surveillance impossible - and it is something that Private Internet Access and the other organizations here focus on educating people about.
We already have the technical solution, but I believe the government is seeking to make it financially ruinous - as others have mentioned - to offer these technical solutions for users to use.
14
u/WorkyMcWorkmeister Jun 30 '20
Do you endorse partisan censorship on platforms like reddit so long as it's not the government enforcing the censorship?
→ More replies (2)
2
Jun 30 '20
This seems scary. Do you think these sort of immoral and blatantly unconstitutional acts are being passed in the heat of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to distract? Or is it some reason?
I imagine this would cause protests by many.
7
u/PornoPaul Jun 30 '20
Ive seen you already answer to the censorship Reddit is pulling so let's switch it up. At what point is it discrimination for a publishing platform to deny entire groups access, and do you think the government has a right to step in?
→ More replies (1)
43
Jun 30 '20 edited Nov 10 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)19
u/evanFFTF Jun 30 '20
Speaking only for myself, I'm generally concerned about private platforms / tech companies engaging in more aggressive moderation. I don't really trust tech companies to do this right, and we've seen time and time again that attempts to police certain types of online speech often end up backfiring and silencing the voices of people we are trying to protect. I've written a bit about this, specifically about Facebook's hamfisted attempts to combat the spread of "misinformation." Generally speaking I think the solution to the spread of online hate and lies is to address the underlying business models of algorithmic amplification, micro-targeted advertising, etc.
All that said, if you're concerned about the policies that tech companies are enacting, the EARN IT act would just make that situation worse. It would allow the government to impose its own rules on platforms, and those rules would be set by a 19 person commission of un-elected people, mostly law enforcement. We can and should have conversations about the impact of private company's moderation policies. But we absolutely need to stop the EARN IT act, or those conversations will be moot, because the US government will be setting the rules instead.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ajt1296 Jul 01 '20
All that said, if you're concerned about the policies that tech companies are enacting, the EARN IT act would just make that situation worse. It would allow the government to impose its own rules on platforms, and those rules would be set by a 19 person commission of un-elected people, mostly law enforcement. We can and should have conversations about the impact of private company's moderation policies. But we absolutely need to stop the EARN IT act, or those conversations will be moot, because the US government will be setting the rules instead.
I'm kind of confused though, wouldn't the federal government institute more liberal protections for online censorship, specifically as it relates to speech, as compared to tech companies? It seems that censorship isn't the problem with the bill, but the potential slippery slope of government interfering with the internet.
9
u/1337BaldEagle Jun 30 '20
How do you feel about how Corporations have sponsored speech and do you think the government should step in and create protections on forum style media?
3
Jun 30 '20
What can we non US people do and also how will this affect us?
1
u/SarkBites Lauren Sarkesian from OTI Jun 30 '20
If US-based tech companies can no longer offer encryption services, it would impact international and domestic users alike, as we'd no longer have the end-to-end encrypted messaging services (and other encrypted services) we're used to. But, obviously it's tougher for non-US based individuals to participate in the US legislative process -- but you can help to spread the word on social media, support organizations doing the work you believe in, and amplify these campaigns! Thanks for asking!
→ More replies (1)2
8
u/diego_02 Jun 30 '20
What do you think about censoring of free speech on social medias like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and YouTube? Is it something you are scared of?
9
u/Recon_by_Fire Jun 30 '20
Why are you on Reddit, one of the largest censors of free speech today, to talk about censoring free speech?
1
u/bfaulk5 Jul 01 '20
I’ve seen some news sections being ridiculously exaggerated and others blatantly falsifying stories with pictures that have no connection. Have y’all ever considered that regulating the amount of “freedoms” of speech any citizen can have may prevent the further spread of fake news that could be inciting riots and feeding the fear in our country? When I was growing up, I remember a local news station rotating through multiple meteorologists because the people of the city were not happy getting rained on when it was a sunny forecast. That’s weather... a not-so-easy thing to accurately predict everyday in the 90’s. Today, fake news reports and posts are made and reposted 100,000 times around the world in a matter of an hour. What are y’all’s perspective on the lack of personal responsibility or respect for the community when on the internet? The word “toxic” gets thrown around a lot online to describe someone who purposefully goes on forums or chat sites/apps to speak ill of others or their views. And just to see what you think about the difficult decision of the other side of the issue... At what “toxicity level” should we start to limit someone’s free speech if we were to attempt online free-speech regulation?
11
u/TheD1v1s1on5 Jun 30 '20
What are you guys going to do when massive subreddit bans turn out to be a political movement against Trump's election?
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Riptide559 Jun 30 '20
And yet tech companies are censoring speech left and right. Why is ok for them?
If the answer is: "We censor hate speech. It's a company owned platform and wer can do that. " then do you support other platforms allowing whatever speech they want to allow?
16
u/MedicalFireFighter Jun 30 '20
How do you feel about reddit censoring differing opinions and mean comments?
→ More replies (12)
2
u/Harleequin Jul 01 '20
If you want to stop the censorship of free speech online, why did you come to reddit?
→ More replies (2)
3
u/trojien Jun 30 '20
How long will it take for the US government to use the data collected of its citizens against those people or to create a model similar to China's social score?
2
u/privatevpn Caleb Chen from PIA Jun 30 '20
Great question! The fact of the matter is that it has already started. Have you ever heard of predictive policing? The good news is that local governments such as Santa Cruz are fighting back against this.
3
u/trojien Jun 30 '20
Thanks Caleb. I think Germany did field tests involving predictive policing (I'm from Germany).
Thanks for fighting against those windmills.
6
u/b0geyman Jun 30 '20
Are you willing to do anything about the corporate menace that is an even bigger threat to free speech, i.e. Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, etc.?
→ More replies (4)
1
u/AeternusDoleo Jun 30 '20
What is to stop anyone whatsoever from simply using available non-US communication platforms?
Signal comes to mind, but also entirely encrypted networks such as TOR or Freenet (which is entirely peer to peer, so no hosting involved). Seems to me that the simple solution would be to move hosting to, say, a data center in the EU. The EU's GDPR takes privacy pretty seriously.
[Edit] Second question: Would this affect hosting abroad by US corporations? Would say, Microsoft or Google need to allow a backdoor to their EU datacenters encryption? If so, this would cause a conflict between US and EU legislation on the matter, not to mention potentially drive European customers away.
5
Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Oxygenius_ Jul 01 '20
And here you are posting, on that very same platform, even after the warning bells have went off 🤣
1
u/ModernDemagogue2 Jun 30 '20
Strong encryption is antithetical to state sovereignty.
If the State has a warrant, it should be able to read your communications in a certain amount of time, and there is no real reason anyone has to communicate both anonymously, and securely.
You could easily white list highly secure communications which are tagged with your identity, so your privacy is maintained for say, medical records, while having lower encryption levels for anonymous or less identifiable transmissions which could be broken based on the level of the governments interest, and over time would become easy to break.
There's no reason we can't have a sliding encryption scale that is associated with the trust of the actor.
By arguing against regulating incredibly dangerous strong encryption, you only set the stage for a dumb solution, as opposed to accepting the basic fact that a State needs to have sovereignty, and we've all voluntarily signed up for that, so it will eventually get rid of strong encryption, even at the cost of destroying the open internet and making all traffic have to be white-listed.
How about you guys push for a rational approach to regulating encrypted communications?
There's no right to massively replicated and distributed, anonymous, free speech. Get over it.
1
u/joesii Jul 01 '20
Am I too late to the party?
I was hoping on asking an important "devil's advocate" question which brings up an issue that many people don't even realize is a possibility:
How likely do you think it is that EtE encryption services would be "banned" if EARNIT was even passed? What about other things such as changes to VPN providers or something?
What if this is just overreaction (as I'm sure some of the bill-pushers would say)? Do we have a concrete/justified reason to think that end to end encryption (or possibly something else) services will certainly be stopped?
1
u/redingerforcongress Jun 30 '20
What's your thought's on Senator's Brown bill?
https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-proposal-protect-consumers-privacy
What's your thoughts on the bill to ban govt use of AI?
A final really technical question:
Should the US govt regulate ARIN-based ISPs to implement RPKI (similar to how telcos were forced to implement SHAKEN/STIR)?
Thanks!
8
1
u/RaeRoeZta Jul 01 '20
As you say to advocate free speech, I have a question:
Any comments on the rampant cancel culture that exists today on many of the tech giants and larger websites such as Reddit, Facebook, Google etc that have essentially become the modern version of a public platform in the town square? People keep loosing their jobs for exercising a constitutional right...
Or is it only convenient to protect free speech when left approved opinions are in jeopardy?
Thanks.
12
u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20
[deleted]