Hacker News Reader

Comment by lunchbreak | Hacker News Reader

A Twitter thread [1] from Matthew Green in this bill. Essentially he says that this bill is a dead on arrival bill which is designed to make EARN IT look like a fair compromise.

And we better not fall for it

[1] https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/12759760840231198...

View on HN

This is called the "Door in the Face technique" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique)

I'm surprised that page makes no reference to Overton Window which is also relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Thanks for that. I was aware of this phenomenon but didn't know its name. Funny, the Overton Window article does link to DITF, but not the other way around.

Thanks for the reference, I didn't know that name and always called it the "aim at 1000 to get 100" rule, which is essentially trading without doing it openly.

We (HNers) might not fall for it but the proven technologically illiterate Representatives and their staff just might. This is why citizen's lobbying is so important. If the lawmakers are willfully ignorant - or in this case willfully arrogant about attacking encryption - the only thing that will get them to vote the right way is to hear from enough real constituents that the lawmakers feel like their reelection will be in jeapordy if they do vote the wrong way.

I agree with lunchbreak's comment that this new bill seems "engineered" to make EARN IT look like a reasonable compromise.

FYI, there's a long history of politicians attempting to regulate mathematical truths they don't understand. My favorite example is probably the infamous Indiana Pi Bill, via which local politicians wanted to regulate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2, according a "proof" published by some crank. The politicians were even hoping they could get people outside Indiana to pay a royalty for the "proof." No, I'm not making this up:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

I... what? I dont even understand the point. Surely if politicians want to scam people for money there are better ways.

> My favorite example is probably the infamous Indiana Pi Bill, via which local politicians wanted to regulate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2, according a "proof" published by some crank.

Honestly, that seems to be a bit of a distortion. What I've read about that makes it sound like some state legislators were fooled for a little while by a crank, which caused a dumb bill to advance a little before being killed. No law was ever passed, and the motivation appears to be less of trying to force nature to submit to law and more trying to secure rights to (what they thought) was advanced technology. Even the "regulate the value of Pi" aspect is a (popular) overstatement, since (IIRC) that value was only implied by the bill.

According to the rationalwiki link:

> The bill easily passed committee and was unanimously passed by the house. Representatives received it favorably, with one gushing that "The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct value of pi, the author offers our state without cost the use of his discovery and its free publication in our school textbooks, while everyone else must pay him a royalty."

> According to the rationalwiki link:

The Wikipedia link is way better and more credible:

> Upon its introduction in the Indiana House of Representatives, the bill's language and topic occasioned confusion among the membership; a member from Bloomington proposed that it be referred to the Finance Committee, but the Speaker accepted another member's recommendation to refer the bill to the Committee on Swamplands, where the bill could "find a deserved grave".[5]:385 It was transferred to the Committee on Education, which reported favorably;[6] following a motion to suspend the rules, the bill passed on February 6, 1897[5]:390 without a dissenting vote.

Honestly, it sounds like none of them understood the mathematics and the main effect of the bill had something to do with getting the state a license to use the copyrighted techniques royalty free. I'm speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of those who voted for did so because they thought there'd be little harm in getting something for free.

If anything, the more embarrassing thing seems to be they didn't seem to understand copyrights or patents very well, which are creatures of law that legislators should better understand than mathematics. I don't know if the precedents existed 120 years ago, but you can't patent/copyright mathematical truth, so even if the crank was right they should have known they didn't need to to anything to avoid paying him royalties to use his results.

RationalWiki generally sucks. They are in for belittling other people, not presenting a neutral view.

If you live in California, let Senator Feinstein's office know you're not pleased with this. Unfortunately I don't think she's up for reelection this year, but if she doesn't retire next year, consider not voting for her in the next primary,

Feinstein was one of the EARN-IT Act's sponsors, and a long-time opponent of cryptography.

Feinstein needs to go

87? Yep. My 2 year old has a deeper appreciation for modern society.

At this point, with all of the tech industry in her state, I think she has enough of a permanent remember-harvy-milk voter block to blatantly ignore them as she has been doing for the past couple of decades.

She is one biggest pro-spy-on-everyone senators there is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Mass_surveill...

Been there. Done that. Got the form letter response.

Thank you for writing to me to share your concerns about law enforcement access to encrypted communications. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand you are opposed to the “Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2020” (S. 3398), which I introduced with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) on March 5, 2020. You may be interested to know that the Senate Judiciary Committee - of which I am Ranking Member - held a hearing on the “EARN IT Act” on March 11, 2020. If you would like to watch the full hearing or read the testimonies given by the hearing witnesses, I encourage you to visit the following website: https://sen.gov/53RV

The “EARN IT Act” would establish a National Commission on Online Sexual Exploitation Prevention to recommend best practices for companies to identify and report child sexual abuse material. Companies that implement these, or substantially similar, best practices would not be liable for any child sexual abuse materials that may still be found on their platforms. Companies that fail to meet these requirements, or fail to take other reasonable measures, would lose their liability protection.

Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, which is why I was deeply disturbed by recent reporting by The New York Times about the nearly 70 million online photos and videos of child sexual abuse that were reported by technology companies last year. It is a federal crime to possesses, distribute, or produce pictures of sexually explicit conduct with minors, and technology companies are required to report and remove these images on their platforms. Media reports, however, make it clear that current federal enforcement measures are insufficient and that we must do more to protect children from sexual exploitation.

Please know that I believe we must strike an appropriate balance between personal privacy and public safety. It is helpful for me to hear your perspective on this issue, and I will be mindful of your opposition to the “EARN IT Act” as the Senate continues to debate proposals to address child sexual exploitation.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at feinstein.senate.gov

Remind her how unhappy she was when the CIA poked around Senate computers, and if even her title and the law won't protect you snooping, maybe cryptography isn't all bad.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/politics/senate-cia/index.htm...

You'd think this would have given both Feinstein and Graham a better appreciation for cybersecurity, but no.

> the only thing that will get them to vote the right way is to hear from enough real constituents that the lawmakers feel like their reelection will be in jeapordy if they do vote the wrong way.

Like most real world systems this sounds incredibly inefficient to me. In germany there used to be (and maybe still is) the "Wahl-O-Mat" [1] ( an artificial word made out of two words: vote and automation ). The idea is to answer some questions and the Wahl-O-Mat tells you for which party you should vote.

Let's extend this idea and make a thought experiment. Imagine the questions and the answers would be tended / adjusted over time (like a profile on a dating site). The rules how the voting suggestion is computed are straight forward ( a weighted sum or something ). If a new controverse question arises then people adjust their voting-profile according to their beliefs (or if it doesn't matter to them they don't). If the profiles are public then the outcome of the next elections can be predicted easily. Best next thing to direct democracy.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahl-O-Mat

Edit:grammar

Reply on news.ycombinator.com