Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmos62 | Hacker News Reader

I prefered the context given on this petition page: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-let-congress-kill-e...

> Just a few months ago, Senator Lindsey Graham (R–SC) delivered an ominous threat to Apple, Facebook, and any other tech company that might refuse to kill encryption programs that prevent malicious hackers, law enforcement officers, and others from accessing our private communications systems: "You're going to find a way to do this or we're going to do it for you."

> Graham has authored the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2019 — or EARN IT Act [...]

View on HN

> You see, the EARN IT Act grants the Attorney General broad authority to force tech companies to do whatever he wants

I looked and could not find this. That article did not offer any specifics either.

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-b...

Scroll to summary, specifically "Section 230 immunity for CSAM can be earned via 1 of 2 “safe harbors”."

Here is some more criticism of the EARN IT Act supporting that https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/03/the_earn-it_a...

Lindsay Graham has repeatedly sought to weaken encryption and mandate backdoors and key escrow. Also in June this year following the EARN IT Act he introduced the Lawful Access To Encrypted Data Act (LAED) which would mandate backdoors:

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/06/there%E2%80%99s-n...

LEAD is extreme and has little support. It is widely believed that the LAED was not intended to be passed but is meant to help pass the EARN IT Act by making the EARN IT Act seem like a more moderate and reasonable piece of legislation.

The EARN IT Act is really a ploy by Lindsay Graham and others to bypass Congress on this issue which they cannot otherwise get passed, and allow a small group of people who are not even security experts to develop regulation and mandates (which will probably be against encryption) under the guise of fighting child porn.

The basis of the arguments in that article are based on items that have been stricken from the Act. That article and the EFF post are out of date. Compliance with "best practices" is no longer part of the bill. As of right now there is no teeth to the bill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com