What kind of ridiculously sensationalized title (and blog post) is this? The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT community?
It takes almost no measures against child pornography specifically while essentially ending encryption (or moving encryption to a “first prove you’re not using it for harm” approach) and allowing an unelected commission to essentially define what is and what is not considered inappropriate for the internet to view
The bill is pushed by anti-lgbtq/religious groups under the guise of protecting children, similar to the failed California ballot measure pushed by religious groups in 2016 to require all porn viewed in California to feature the usage of condoms under the guise of promoting safe sexual practices (and allow individuals who witnessed such a video to personally sue the content provider), yet was actually a thinly veiled attempt to shut down the entire porn industry in California, where it was essentially invented.
Both of these cases should and likely would be thrown out by the Supreme Court as a direct threat against the first amendment, but who knows anymore.
IANAL, so can someone please explain this section:
“(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider—
“(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services;
“(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or
“(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.”.
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Commission is to
14 develop recommended best practices that providers of inter-
15 active computer services may choose to implement to pre-
16 vent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation
17 of children, including the enticement, grooming, sex traf-
18 ficking, and sexual abuse of children and the proliferation
19 of online child sexual abuse material.
>The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT community?
Sensationalized yes 100%, a bill that defines what is safe for children to see and not see content wise is absolutely a cause for concern as it enters a very partisan political chamber.
Sadly just cause a bill is aimed to do good does not mean the fine print doesn't screw over vast populations or has anything to do with how its advertised at the begining. Look at what the policies that made Pizza a 'vegetable', they were attached to policies to help children's health.
