Today I am watching the Senate Judicial Committee on
"Hearing on Child Internet Safety." Less than 60-seconds into the hearing, #Section230 and The Earn it Act get a mention.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?526011-1/hearing-child-internet-safety&live
They are taking a "consumer protection" angle to this.
It appears that they wish to make providers liable for the actions of others online. It isn't clear to me what reasonable steps they would like someone to take to meet a duty of care.
Self Harm Reference
Blackburn is saying something about kids being the product, not the customer. Demands safety by default. Says independent audits are needed. But I'm still not hearing any set of actions that one could take. I don't know what would be audited.
One of the people testifying is Kristin Bride. Her son hung himself after being bullied online. She faults the providers of applications that allow anonymous communication and #Section230 for protecting them.
#Section230
#KOSA (Kids Online Safety Act)
The second person, Emma Lake, faults social media for her depression, self esteem, and spending 5-6 hours online per day until she "reached [her] breaking point" in 9th grade.
She identifies as being park of Gen Z and fighting for the next generation. She describes unregulated social media as a WoMD.
A rep from NCMEC is there too. She is speaking of companies not sufficiently reporting information in reporting CSAM or taking sufficient steps to protect them.
That someone has no recourse if the hosting entity takes no actions to detect the material.
She wants victims to have immunity allowing them to report their abuse.
That the law make victim identifying efforts.
Liability for knowingly distributing CSAM.
Use of appropriate words when describing crime.
uh oh...encryption...
...encryption is always a hard one.
She wants methods built into encryption that detects CSAM. She is concerned that default end-to-end encryption is going to interfere with detecting CSAM.
There is a much older underlying issue here. How does one insure another is not saying something unlawful if they cannot see what is being said?
Onto Raven, an org dedicated to protecting children He asserts any app that allows sharing pix could be a danger to children.
@ThinkingSapien By that logic, they should open every letter sent through the USPS because CSAM could potentially be sent through the mail.
Instead of a coordinated, funded effort by LEO to take down the abusers, they're flailing wildly and trying to punish the entire internet...
@LouisIngenthron I'm getting a sense of Déjà vu. Some of these same arguments came up from the FBI when phones started to become encrypted by default. I think it was a San Bernadito (msp)iPhone case.
Encrypting data is a fundamental part of personal security.