> The new bill would make it financially impossible for providers like
WhatsApp and Apple to operate services unless they conduct “best
practices” for scanning their systems for CSAM.
I'm okay with that, as long as e2e isn't actually banned.
I'm okay with that, as long as e2e isn't actually banned.
Any unmonitored user upload is at risk here.
This is dark.
On the other hand, online "clubs" or services like FB etc. are not neutral carriers, they are content providers or "publishers" who source a lot of their content from the people who use them.
Right or wrong, that's the mental model I'm operating from: you're a carrier and you just take bits from here to there, or you're a kind of club, like a "Sam's Club" but for Internet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_club ) and you're responsible for the stuff you stock on your shelves.
Now then, my opinion (such as it is) is that "I won't make enough money" is not a valid reason for not scanning for and preventing CSAM on your internet clubhouse.
Your analogy makes no sense.
Let's talk about FTP instead. If I write and sell an FTP client and/or server I do not expect to be liable for the content the users of that software exchange. This is true whether or not my software supports e2e.
If, however, I set up my own network, invite people to use it, and let them exchange CSAM, then I should be liable. This is true whether or not my software supports e2e.