Thank you for writing to me to share your concerns about law enforcement access to encrypted communications. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
I understand you are opposed to the “Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2020” (S. 3398), which I introduced with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) on March 5, 2020. You may be interested to know that the Senate Judiciary Committee—of which I am Ranking Member—held a hearing on the “EARN IT Act” on March 11, 2020. If you would like to watch the full hearing or read the testimonies given by the hearing witnesses, I encourage you to visit the following website: https://sen.gov/53RV.
The “EARN IT Act” would establish a National Commission on Online Sexual Exploitation Prevention to recommend best practices for companies to identify and report child sexual abuse material. Companies that implement these, or substantially similar, best practices would not be liable for any child sexual abuse materials that may still be found on their platforms. Companies that fail to meet these requirements, or fail to take other reasonable measures, would lose their liability protection.
Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, which is why I was deeply disturbed by recent reporting by The New York Times about the nearly 70 million online photos and videos of child sexual abuse that were reported by technology companies last year. It is a federal crime to possesses, distribute, or produce pictures of sexually explicit conduct with minors, and technology companies are required to report and remove these images on their platforms. Media reports, however, make it clear that current federal enforcement measures are insufficient and that we must do more to protect children from sexual exploitation.
Please know that I believe we must strike an appropriate balance between personal privacy and public safety. It is helpful for me to hear your perspective on this issue, and I will be mindful of your opposition to the “EARN IT Act” as the Senate continues to debate proposals to address child sexual exploitation.
Once again, thank you for writing. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at feinstein.senate.gov. You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter.
"Please know that I believe we must strike an appropriate balance between personal privacy and public safety."
Why do you believe that, Dianne? Do you disagree with the spirit of the Fourth Amendment? Are invasions of personal privacy only justified by probable cause, or is that not the case? What is your standard for the "appropriate balance"?
----------
Is it even worth assuming sincerity with somebody like Feinstein? Child pornography is a heinous crime, but not nearly as heinous as using child pornography as a lever for industrial scale human rights abuses. Frauds and/or useful idiots.
What's more absurd is the assumption that they can stop child porn or sharing of anything "subjective" in the sense that it's a bunch of bytes difficult to distinguish from other bytes without manual filtering. You just can't automate distinguishing between legitimate porn and child porn. Even if you could, you'll just drive sharing of such content underground, while trampling all over the personal rights of those doing nothing wrong.
If they really want to address child pornography as a problem, they would treat it as a social ill/disease and go after the users instead of the platform. The goal should be reform that minimizes recidivism because it makes it easier to find those partaking in this content. At least with something like Facebook, they have a shot at identifying those sharing such content. Make it impossible to share on a widely used and understood service like Facebook and people will migrate to platforms that are much much harder to police.
I bet she has advocates in her office all the time with heinous pictures and stories. And I imagine over time that is more convincing than abstract arguments for privacy.
I think she's making the wrong call but I can understand the process by which she made it.
An old (90s) parable Perry Metzger came up with - point being, they'll always use "heaven forbid, the children" as the final arbiter in removing all privacy rights.
"Meanwhile, the wise man talked one evening to his friends on how all of this was making a sham of the constitution of Ruritania, of which all Ruritanians were proud. "Why", he asked, "are we obligated to sacrifice all our freedom and privacy to make the lives of the police easier? There isn't any real evidence that this makes any big dent in crime anyway! All it does is make our privacy forfeit to the state!"
However, the wise man made the mistake of saying this, as the law required, in Ruritanian, clearly and distinctly, and near a microphone. Soon, the newly formed Ruritanian Secret Police arrived and took him off, and got him to confess by torturing him. Torture was, after all, far more efficient than the old methods, and had been recently instituted to stop the recent wave of people thinking obscene thoughts about tomatoes, which Dorothy Quisling noted was one of the major problems of the new age of plenty and joy."
It seemed absurd at the time but it's becoming a reality.
Note: I had to use Qwant to find that. Just sayin'
Thank you for sharing this. That website is a gem of the past. Check out the home page:
> Some agencies of the United States Government (notably the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)), want to prevent the deployment of encryption technology. They want either encryption so weak that just about anyone can break it, or they want a copy of every key used with strong encryption. This would be equivalent to a town with no locks on the front doors, or where the sheriff has a copy of every door key (just in case he has to search the house).
> The term was coined by Timothy C. May in 1988, who referred to them as "child pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, etc." when discussing the reasons for limited civilian use of cryptography tools.
From "CypherPunk FAQ" [1]:
> 8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?"
> ... like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles.
Best practices for companies? What about best practices for the people who actually enforce the law? Why doesn't law enforcement do it's actual job instead of trying to bypass the Constitution? You know, go undercover and catch people like the good old days. I'm supposed to give up my privacy because they are lazy.
It blows me away that California keeps sending probably the worst Senator in the Democratic caucus to DC every single election. Y'all need to kick her to the curb already.
This is the perfect counterpoint to all the grandstanding about calling your representatives. I tried calling both my Senators' offices when one of the "big issues" was going around. (I don't even remember what it was now.) In both cases, I got some aide who 1) couldn't or wouldn't tell me my Senator's position on the bill, and 2) couldn't possibly care less (despite what they said) about my opinion on the matter. I mean, I'm sorry to be pessimistic about it, but on that day, I learned that the average person does NOT, in fact, have any influence in what's going on in Washington. Influencing legislation is a right reserved for campaign contributors. Until we get serious about "getting money out of politics," that will be the case.
Yeah I dont even bother with the whole "call / write your senator" stuff. Total just get these condescending auto-responses telling you why they're right and you're wrong.
> Influencing legislation is a right reserved for campaign contributors. Until we get serious about "getting money out of politics," that will be the case.
I dont even think its just that. I'd wager than whenever a case like this comes up, the bill is either popular in the congressperson home state or people are widely just ignorant about it and what it entails. These two things probably help contribute to some of the most unpopular senators nationally are constantly re-elected and have been for decades.
Fully agreed. Exactly the same response AND same attitude from our representatives. The attitude part of it was the worst- it's specifically designed to be unrewarding, to make you leave them alone .
There are technical solutions coming down the pike at our benighted lawmakers that are going to change the balance of power and force them to be more attentive and truly represent their constituents. That's all I can say for now.
Pelosi and Feinstein DO truly represent their constituents as far as I can tell, it has to be said. I don't particularly like either of them, but then I don't particularly care for the people they represent either.
Thank you for contacting my office. Your thoughts and concerns are very important to me and you will receive a more detailed response shortly. I sincerely appreciate your patience in waiting for this response, as our mail volume is often significant.
If this is a request for assistance with a federal agency or an immigration case, please contact my Department of Constituent Affairs directly by phone at (212) 688 - 6262 or email casework@gillibrand.senate.gov .
Thank you for writing to me to share your concerns about law enforcement access to encrypted communications. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
I understand you are opposed to the “Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2020” (S. 3398), which I introduced with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) on March 5, 2020. You may be interested to know that the Senate Judiciary Committee—of which I am Ranking Member—held a hearing on the “EARN IT Act” on March 11, 2020. If you would like to watch the full hearing or read the testimonies given by the hearing witnesses, I encourage you to visit the following website: https://sen.gov/53RV.
The “EARN IT Act” would establish a National Commission on Online Sexual Exploitation Prevention to recommend best practices for companies to identify and report child sexual abuse material. Companies that implement these, or substantially similar, best practices would not be liable for any child sexual abuse materials that may still be found on their platforms. Companies that fail to meet these requirements, or fail to take other reasonable measures, would lose their liability protection.
Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, which is why I was deeply disturbed by recent reporting by The New York Times about the nearly 70 million online photos and videos of child sexual abuse that were reported by technology companies last year. It is a federal crime to possesses, distribute, or produce pictures of sexually explicit conduct with minors, and technology companies are required to report and remove these images on their platforms. Media reports, however, make it clear that current federal enforcement measures are insufficient and that we must do more to protect children from sexual exploitation.
Please know that I believe we must strike an appropriate balance between personal privacy and public safety. It is helpful for me to hear your perspective on this issue, and I will be mindful of your opposition to the “EARN IT Act” as the Senate continues to debate proposals to address child sexual exploitation.
Once again, thank you for writing. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at feinstein.senate.gov. You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter.
Best regards.
Sincerely yours,