Quantcast

You need to know what the EARN IT Act is, and why it could spell doom for the internet as we know it

Because the EARN IT act is actually a bill that appears to be a bill that wants to stop all encryption online among other things. By stopping encryption, we mean apps like Signal and Whatsapp wouldn’t exist anymore (at least in the way they do now) in the name of allegedly protecting children.

In the U.S, the Earn It Act aims to provide the government sweeping powers in the country to order companies to break encryption (or therefore be subject to crushing legal liabilities.)

Okay so let’s break this down in non-Senate talk so everybody can understand what the original point of this bill was, and then, what it became after Senators like Lindsey Graham inserted their opinions where they truthfully didn’t matter.

In the bill, the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children argues that messages online should be scanned for purposes of finding things like:

  1. Child porn.
  2. Child exploitation
  3. Missing children
  4. Alleged kidnappings
  5. And most things you’d think of in that category

While the Earn It Act seemed well intended in the beginning, then came the foul-mouthed Senators who thought it was a jolly good idea to try and order companies to decrypt themselves or else.

 Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act

Enter: Lindsey Graham (who just so happens to be up for re-election. I promise this is the pettiest line I’ve ever written in an article, donate and help his opponent Jaime Harrison)

The bill originally sponsored in fact by Graham and Blumenthal aims to directly combat what they call a rise in the 5 points made above. While that may be the case in some jurisdictions, they failed to address the very obvious concern that the bill tramples on a number of personal and constitutionally protected liberties within the borders of the United States.

What are those? So glad you’re curious.

  1. Encryption on services like Signal; WhatsApp, and the variant would all but disappear under the bill. In fact, the prospects of the bill have spooked Signal execs so bad they’re threatening to jump ship from America all together.
  2. The bill doesn’t directly use the word encryption, although Senators like Graham and Blumenthal and even AG Barr have made it their mission to destroy things like encryption (obviously, so the government can further watch messages online.)
  3. The bill broadly discusses a list of “best practices” which presumably would be made by the very same corrupt administration that has almost single-handedly taken down America as most Americans know it. That list of best practices would subjectively tell online platforms how to curate; manage, and control user-generated content. Alas, the same way Congress cannot tell news outlets, for example, how to manage their content — congress cannot tell websites how to manage that content either. Any attempts to do so are actually a direct violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

For those who may need a refresher of what that First Amendment says, look absolutely no further.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- The United States Constitution, Amendment 1 

Thus I bring your attention to what is referred to as Section 230, which grants otherwise tech platforms and the like online “immunity” if you will from a host of various potential legal liabilities. The proposed act would effectively remove that immunity if a website or platform doesn’t follow the proposed “best practices” at the discretion of people like Attorney General Barr. In reference to that, one might want to take a peek at this Supreme Court decision that pretty much says that this amounts to a gross violation of constitutional rights.

Next — the proposed law very vaguely consistently references “child porn” and all things related. Thus, they fail to keep it directly aimed at such content that may appear online and instead vaguely say that they want online providers to be held accountable for the content in which they choose to allow. The problem? They can’t actually do that under the very same constitution that remains the hallmark of American life.

In order for the EARN IT act to actually be successful and law abiding in itself, the law would have to directly and (“only”) address the content in question rather than vaguely pretty much saying online providers are going to be held at gunpoint by the government if they don’t comply.

Otherwise the EARN IT act is as exactly as it reads: tantamount to a government takeover of personal freedoms and liberties both on and offline.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by MonsterInsights