Privacy/freedom of speech advocacy notes in federal policy:
Congress is looking to renew the Patriot Act for data collection:
"If approved, the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 would reauthorize Section 215 powers Congress established under the USA Patriot Act in 2001. Section 215 is the provision national-security agencies have cited to support their unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States."
https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/congress-tries-sneak-through-dangerous-spying-bill-under-cover-coronavirus
And in what you'd think was entirely unrelated--youth exploitation/sex trafficking legislation--other folks are concerned that it's a push to cripple end-to-end encryption.
This was framed as a privacy rights/free speech issue by the EFF but I see there's a lot more to it after reading most of the bill--the bill is 65 pages long and in sentiment is decent: Why not get a committee to develop best practices around preventing the sexual exploitation and trafficking of youth?
Summing up the prevailing problem in one line:
The policy's still attacking the messengers, not the folks with the message.
Three things I see as issues with non-expert and possibly haunch-like skepticism:
1. Root causes like a functional foster care system, viable domestic abuse shelters and recovery (including basic housing for those who are trying to leave an abusive family and have a healthy place to live; counseling and therapy or addiction recovery support), victim protections* are probably not addressed.
Or if so, definitely not adequately--our country is terrible at addressing this and we still struggle to make the necessary changes last.
At best, there will be a report and legislation with best practices that might unify a few agencies depending on the administrative leadership that's been around. But how would the best practices compiled by committee differ from those identified by NGOs like Polaris which are still working on the same issues?
i.e. many trafficked sex workers wind up getting penalized more than the people that exploited them--Cytonia Brown (a child at the time of her sentencing) and another teenager (whose name I unfortunately forget but is still facing prison time despite being the victim) being very recent visible examples of this--and must bear more stigma while not getting support for their own needs much like how low level drug dealers wind up with the brunt of issues ranging from hard to cut gang ties and sometimes addiction
2. As EFF points out, this bill makes whatever the committee recommend into legislation, and while I couldn't find the specific sections in the bill (pretty sure it'll be somewhere toward the end of the first ⅓ of the bill in the 20-30 page range), the AG allegedly would have power to basically force encrypted web services like WhatsApp and signal to (presumably broadly) disclose private user information or just shut them down -- those are Messengers, not necessarily the source of the messages and it becomes a violation of privacy much like the Patriot Act
3. Most elected officials don't really know how basic technology really works -- the committee would be made of lots of majority and minority appointees.
I.e. Mark Zuckerberg's congressional hearing is an unfortunate example in how incompetent the average representative and their likely chosen advisors tend to be.
Sophos security summary article
Senate Bill
EFF advocacy
https://act.eff.org/action/protect-our-speech-and-security-online-reject-the-graham-blumenthal-bill
No comments:
Post a Comment