It seems like this Stanford page has clearly taken a side on the issue. Does anyone have a link to a solid unbiased discussion of the pros and cons of this? It's got bipartisan support, so clearly there are legitimate arguments in favor of these changes, would be interested to hear what they are.
> It's got bipartisan support, so clearly there are legitimate arguments in favor of these changes
I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise.
It doesn't seem appropriate to assume that politicians are acting in good faith dialectical fashion, based on literally every observation we've ever made of their actions vs their rhetoric.
Issues like this are difficult as there are conflicting needs and people wearing blinders on the issue. There’s really no correct answer, but there are at least 4-5 camps of true believers.
Recall the HN community going apeshit over Apple’s proposed methodology to address this issue. That solution was engineered to benefit Apple and was imperfect, but fundamentally addressed CSAM risk with a proven methodology and preserved strong crypto.
That visceral, apeshit reaction was incited by a poorly written EFF article that blurred the lines between a parental control and CSAM.
So yay, we won. Now broken encryption is back and may well pass, as both law and order moderates and batshit crazy conservatives can find common ground.
Let's have no fear to face down our opponents' claims. Senators pushing this bill laid down their claims in a document [0], and everyone should put on their critical thinking caps and grapple with it.
Wyden (like Rand Paul) is the rare congressperson that, while I don't agree with all their views, tends to get certain fundamental freedom issues right, especially where other politicians don't on issues with a lot of money and special interest lobbying.
On any particular issue where Wyden goes against his Democratic party leadership AND Paul goes against his Republican party leadership to agree with each other, that's likely to be an issue where I agree with both of them. Too bad there's no way to vote for a 'virtual politician' that's the logic-gate intersection of those two.
> MYTH: Requiring companies to be on the lookout for child abuse will harm startups and nascent businesses.
>FACT: No other type of business in the country is provided such blanket and unqualified immunity for sexual crimes against children.
This jumped out out to me in particular. I can think of another similar industry that delivers private packets which may contain CSAM. What is the US Post office doing to evaluate the bits they deliver? What is the post man's legal liability?
> It's got bipartisan support, so clearly there are legitimate arguments in favor of these changes
Both parties have pretty wide dumb/authoritarian streaks, so it's not necessarily true that there are legitimate arguments in favor. The war on drugs, for example, had/has bipartisan support even though it is an ongoing demonstrable harm to society.
Are there any issues that come up in Washington that don’t have have legitimate arguments for them, regardless of the status of their partisan support?
The “pros” are fairly straightforward, mass data collection makes it easier for law enforcement to do their jobs, or, at least, that’s their opinion.
