I’ve got to dig into this but is Lindsey reverting your his old ways? If true, I can’t trust him. I was overjoyed to see his defense of Kavanaugh, but I suspect he has to many Ukrainians in his closet
If Sen. Lindsey Graham gets his way, the federal government will launch another attack on online privacy. The South Carolina Republican will ask lawmakers to give Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice unchecked access to all of your messaging, file-sharing, and video-sharing tools. That is bad news for just about everyone and a nightmare for those who value digital privacy.
At first glance, Graham’s bill seems innocent enough. After all, it’s called the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act, which seems, on the surface, like a perfectly agreeable proposition. It would assemble a commission to “develop recommended best practices for providers of interactive computer services regarding the prevention of online child exploitation conduct.”
Doesn’t everyone want children to be protected? Well, not so fast. The commission’s “recommendations” would then go to the attorney general, who can approve or disapprove what are essentially new regulations. This means unelected officials would be granted vast power to regulate technology and invade our privacy.
It doesn’t stop there.
These days, most anti-tech legislation targets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and this bill is no different. The law would take away Section 230 protections from any internet service that doesn’t comply with the new commission’s “recommendations,” which is what makes them de facto regulations. Without Section 230 protections, it would be impossible to operate services used by millions every day, such as WhatsApp and iMessage.
Graham’s bill undermines Section 230, the law that created the free internet as we know it.
In short, it generally protects platforms from being held liable for third-party content. For instance, if a user creates a comment or post with illegal content on a site, that platform won’t be held responsible. Before Section 230, that was a serious risk for platforms, but, after the law’s passage in 1996, websites were empowered to experiment and innovate. And this simple protection created safe spaces for many movements to flourish online, from revolutions against tyrants in foreign countries to viral social movements here in the United States.
But under Graham’s bill, companies that fail to comply with the “best practices” created by the proposed commission would be punished for any “child abuse and exploitation-related material” posted by third parties. Of course, what that means exactly is so vague that it would merely be a standard ripe for government abuse.
Worse, even without using the word “encryption” once, the bill would effectively mean the end of end-to-end encryption.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/lindsey-grahams-new-bill-would-end-the-internet-as-we-know-it