
The EARN IT Act: How to Ban End-to-End Encryption Without Banning It - erwan
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-ban-end-end-encryption-without-actually-banning-it
======
tsbinz
Previous discussion (now both entries are on the frontpage):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22202110](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22202110)

------
crmrc114
This kind of insanity- can our legislators please consult someone in
technology before they try and rip apart digital privacy because a few bad
actors exist. The classic "Will someone think of the children!" pearl
clutching also brought us SOPA and PIPA, that thankfully were shot down by
internet outrage after the cost was brought to the full attention of the
public.

~~~
JohnFen
I don't think that this sort of effort is the result of legislators not
understanding the technology or as a reaction to "a few bad actors". Those
things only look true because of the highly disingenuous arguments they're
making.

They actively want to prevent effective encryption from being in common use
solely because it restricts their ability to spy on you and me, thus limiting
their power.

~~~
amylene
I don’t have the context on the intentions of these people, but what makes you
think this? Isn’t it possible they only care about protecting children and the
side effects are completely dismissed, rather than it being a power grab? Just
curious what evidence makes you believe it’s nefarious.

~~~
catalogia
Track record? This is not the American federal government's first digital
powergrab.

They don't deserve being given the benefit of the doubt.

------
earenndil
Solution: make the portions of a company that deal with/offer E2EE and those
that don't separate entities.

The bits that are E2EE don't need immunity because they don't make CSAM
available online. The other bits get immunity because they don't do E2EE,
which is fine, because that's the way it currently is.

I really don't see the point of this.

------
SirLJ
Dupe

