https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2020/03/30/the-cybersecurity-202-cybersecurity-experts-slam-child-protection-bill-that-risks-rolling-back-encryption/5e80cfd5602ff10d49ad761a/
https://www.cnet.com/news/why-your-privacy-could-be-threatened-by-a-bill-to-protect-children/
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/3/21144678/section-230-explained-internet-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation
%2Farc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost%2FYEFRWMTOZQI6VIKWABELMLG3KE.jpg&w=908)
The EARN IT Act (or Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act) is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CO), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The acronym comes from the fact that under it, tech companies would have to "earn" liability protections by adhering by rules set by a 15 person "National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention".
Liability protections protect internet service providers from being held accountable for what is said on their site by another party. Currently, they are established by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act., which has attracted some controversy in recent years due to the spread of hate speech and terrorist content of the internet.
Supporters of the bill say that it will help lower the rates of child exploitation requiring online sites to meet safety requirements for children, at the risk of being sued by individuals if they don't. Ideally, this would make tech companies more vigilant about any potential child predators on its site.
But detractors are more skeptical. They say the bill's focus on child exploitation is just a front to push forward norms that are meant to erode security and privacy protections on the internet. Opponents of the bill fear it may mandate a backdoor for law enforcement officers into any site (in other words, that it may allow the bypassing of any encryption the site uses), as part of its commission's guidelines. Scrutiny also comes from the fact that the 15 person commission is to be headed by the U.S attorney general, currently William Barr. Barr has been pointed towards as a critic of end to end encryption (which protects communications from everyone but the communicators themselves), especially when it comes to the barrier it may pose towards criminal investigations.
Some opponents say a better way to stop child predators would be to increase the Justice Department's funding and resources, as well as to increase the number of agents and prosecutors tracking them down.
Questions:
1. How do you feel about this bill and why?
2. How far should Section 230 protections extend?
3. What actions would you recommend to lower the rate of child exploitation on the internet?
1 comment:
My immediate thought regarding this bill is "why would you not support it??" If we can reduce the amount of child predadoration... predatoryism? you know what I mean. I think if we can protect people and make the internet a safer place, why wouldn't you? And the opposing side has a valid argument, but (and this is just me), if you weren't doing anything wrong, why should you be worried about what law officials may see? That in itself is kind of suspicious to me.
Post a Comment