all 4 comments

[–]redditbegay 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A shit article that wont even link us to the text of the act.

Is this the one that will punish Reddit when it censors people for not bowing to their mouthbreathing modtards?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I used to support the EFF. It's absolutely cringe the kind of propaganda nonsense they push now. Good Christ.

The EARN IT Act would allow all 50 state legislatures, as well as U.S. territories and Washington D.C., to pass laws that would regulate the Internet.

They... they already can? They already do? W h a t????

Even more baffling, I did read the text of the bill (PDF warning). Which really is nothing like the proposal from before, as this explicitly and exclusively is framed to deal with online sexual advances, interactions, etc, pertaining to children.

—Not later than 18 months after the date on which a majority of the members of the Commission required to be appointed under section 3(c)(1)(C) have been so appointed, the Commission shall develop and submit to the Attorney General recommended best practices that providers of interactive computer services may choose to engage in to prevent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation of children, including the enticement, grooming, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse of children and the proliferation of online child sexual abuse material [...]

Even more insanely, they claim

By breaking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the EARN IT bill would allow small website owners to be sued or prosecuted under state laws, as long as the prosecution or lawsuit somehow related to crimes against children.

Um. No. Read the fucking bill.

‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), none of the following actions or circumstances shall serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider of an interactive computer service for a claim or charge described in that paragraph: ‘‘(i) The provider utilizes full end-to end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services. ‘‘(ii) The provider does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication. ‘‘(iii) The provider fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.

In fact nothing in the act is about holding anybody liable for anything, the bulk of it explicitly concerns a commission that should then make recommendations for further legislation. Where it DOES mention liability is pertaining to laws that already exist Under 2255, 2252, 225A, 2256(8), of title 18 USC. So... ?!???!?!?!

This is frankly unbelievable from the EFF. I have no idea what they're getting at from the bill text or how they arrived at these claims. What in the flying fuck.

[–]nolivesmatter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interstate commerce clause would seem to apply

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But it violates the 4th amendment.