> 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.
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.