I find myself consistently disappointed when reading blog posts like this. I generally agree with the principles that the EFF advocates for, but it's hard to see this post as anything other than rage-bait. I can't trust it to be an accurate source of information on what this bill actually does.
For example, I've repeatedly seen claims that this bill would effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption, but the bill explicitly protects companies that offer encryption from liability.
>None of the following actions or circumstances shall serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider of an interactive computer service for a claim or charge described in that paragraph:
>(i) The provider utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.
>(ii) The provider does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication.
>(iii) The provider 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"
When I look to the EFF for an explanation about why this language isn't sufficient, I get this:
>The bill clearly leaves room to impose forms of "client-side scanning"
Going back to the bill, the phrase "client-side scanning" doesn't appear anywhere in the text despite the EFF implying that they're quoting from the bill. If they're not quoting from the bill then what exactly are they quoting from? This is the kind of thing that makes me unable to trust them to be accurate, which makes posts like this effectively useless to me since I feel the need to independently verify all of their claims.
For example, I've repeatedly seen claims that this bill would effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption, but the bill explicitly protects companies that offer encryption from liability.
>None of the following actions or circumstances shall serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider of an interactive computer service for a claim or charge described in that paragraph:
>(i) The provider utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.
>(ii) The provider does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication.
>(iii) The provider 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"
When I look to the EFF for an explanation about why this language isn't sufficient, I get this:
>The bill clearly leaves room to impose forms of "client-side scanning"
Going back to the bill, the phrase "client-side scanning" doesn't appear anywhere in the text despite the EFF implying that they're quoting from the bill. If they're not quoting from the bill then what exactly are they quoting from? This is the kind of thing that makes me unable to trust them to be accurate, which makes posts like this effectively useless to me since I feel the need to independently verify all of their claims.