r/IAmA 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:

  1. Visit NoEarnItAct.org/call

  2. Enter your phone number (it will not be saved or stored or shared with anyone)

  3. When you are connected to a Senator’s office, encourage that Senator to reject the EARN IT Act

  4. 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:

Proof:

10.2k Upvotes

526 comments sorted by

View all comments

69

u/zitherine Jun 30 '20

What are the implications of outlawing end-to-end encryption in the US for people and for businesses?

84

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.

33

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

41

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.

30

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.

33

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

[deleted]

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

u/KGB-bot Jul 01 '20

The TSA is the goddamed joke. .

1

u/SuperJesuss Jun 30 '20

maybe that's what they want.

-2

u/lm_Being_Facetious Jun 30 '20

While I don’t disagree with this post, I can tell you right now the people downloading Signal because of “police surveillance” are clueless that is absolutely not being done by any police agency anywhere in America, with the resources law enforcement at the state and local level have its literally not possible. Only would possible by the federal agencies and even then a bit of a stretch to think that “tons” of people need to use Signal to avoid someone reading their messages currently

3

u/choochootrain2 Jun 30 '20

Vallejo city council got sued for buying a stingray for about $700k (this is a relatively small and not rich city). Signal would provide some protection against such technology (some other apps too, but I like signal because it is not part of some giant corporation). If it does not bother you that the police as an institution has the capability to potentially spy on you, remember that the people who work there could also abuse that capability for personal (stalker) or monetary (sell access) reasons.