[blitmap]

If it has any chance of passing, it could very much cripple the tech sector in the US and make us less competitive.

On the other side of the coin, this is not going to stop individuals from using encryption that isn't broken. It would be ugly to see what it does in commercial spaces, and to your average citizen whose data is less protected. I think it would force a knowledgeable subcommunity further into the shadows while everything else burns.

[jjcon]

You replied to my comment but you didn’t even read the bill.

Read the amendments, they specifically outline that the scope of this bill will not impact encryption laws (which they added specifically because of all the fear-mongering brought by the companies that stand to lose from this bill).

[trianglem]

There is nothing in this bill worth having. What exactly are you supporting here?

[jjoonathan]

The amendment looks legitimately good, unless they're hustling it to an inappropriately small scope or intend to drop it at the lest second. Both are time honored legislative traditions, of course.

    “(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.”.

[AnthonyMouse]

The amendment, even assuming it ends up in the final bill, only limits one specific type of damage that doing this could cause. The bill as a whole is still malicious garbage with no redeeming value.

It's like having a bill giving the FBI regulatory authority over the public school curriculum and then people say that's a terrible idea because they could e.g. prohibit sex education. So then they modify the bill to carve that out in particular. But that was just one specific example. The overall premise of the bill is still inherently damage even if you take out one specific bad thing people were using as an example.

[jjoonathan]

I have to admit, I like the look of that amendment.

That said, I also liked the look of the part in the ACA where Medicare Part D would be allowed to bargain for drug prices. Pity it wound up on the cutting room floor while I wasn't watching. I wonder how that happened?

[blitmap]

I apologize, I didn't see the amendment. I did respond out of anger from the encryption standpoint.

I still don't like that for a number of other reasons safe harbor can be tossed aside