Josh Hawley Rages Ignorantly And Misleadingly In Trying To Push Encryption-Destroying STOP CSAM Bill
from the where-is-the-STOP-HAWLEY-act? dept
Every week it’s some other dumb thing going on in the Senate. On Tuesday Senator Josh Hawley went to the (mostly empty) Senate floor to “seek unanimous consent” for the STOP CSAM bill. That’s basically a process to rush the bill forward before it’s ready.
We’ve written about STOP CSAM before. Despite it’s name, it won’t actually “stop CSAM” but could do a lot of other harm, including effectively undermine end-to-end encryption by allowing plaintiffs to argue that companies that employ encryption are “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently” enabling the sharing of child sexual abuse material.
Of course Hawley didn’t actually engage with any of the underlying bits about STOP CSAM. He just wanted a stage in which he could ignorantly bleat on about the evils of “big tech” and how Section 230 is a problem. You can see the entire thing here. Almost everything Hawley says is either wrong or misleading.
Hawley starts out, as is the standard operating procedure for grandstanding politicians to demand we all just “think about the children” he is using as props for political gain. Is he looking out for their health and safety with better schooling and better healthcare? Is he looking to help protect them from the threat of school shootings? Of course not. He’s mad that the internet exists.
He claims that at last week’s hearing Mark Zuckerberg felt “forced to apologize to the parents there in the room” because of what he heard at that hearing. Of course, anyone who actually watched the hearing knows that the only thing that forced Zuck to apologize was Josh Hawley demanding he apologize (and also demanding Zuck give money to the people in the room, which was just weird).
Hawley also showed this chart to claim it shows just how bad the tech companies are… but that report shows the opposite, as anyone with any knowledge in this space would know. It shows how the companies have gotten much better at finding and reporting CSAM on their platforms to the CyberTipline run by NCMEC. To use that chart to say it proves the companies are a problem is just flat out stupid. The companies are following the law, and reporting the CSAM they find, and they’ve gotten better (through hash matching and other technologies) at finding, blocking, and reporting this material. That should be a cause for celebration. Instead people like Hawley misrepresent it as showing the companies aren’t doing enough.
What it really shows, though, is that the DOJ isn’t doing enough. NCMEC then reports this information to the DOJ who can go after the traffickers, but the DOJ generally ignores much of this. This is why we think Senator Ron Wyden’s bill to actually get the DOJ to do its job and to give NCMEC more resources makes much more sense. But Hawley isn’t pushing that bill. He’s pushing this terrible one.
Why? Because he hates Section 230 and is deliberately misrepresenting 230 to pretend that’s what allows companies to not be held liable for Section 230.
Because Hawley then goes on to complain about Section 230 is the problem. But… that’s just factually false. Section 230 directly and explicitly exempts federal criminal law, including laws relating to the sexual exploitation of children. And, every platform knows full well that if it becomes aware of CSAM it is in legal deep shit if it does not report it to the CyberTipline as soon as possible. That’s got literally nothing to do with Section 230. And changing Section 230 won’t change any of that.
Hawley’s rant about 230 is just fundamentally stupid:
Oh and the tech executives, they know all about it, Mr. President, and they’re not doing a thing about it. Why? Because they are not accountable. Here’s the bottom line. This is the only industry in the country that can make a product that will literally kill you and, if it does, you cannot do anything about it. If it kills your child, you can’t do anything about it. If it harms you, you can’t do anything about it. Just think about it for a second.
In this country, if a Coca Cola manufacturer makes a bottle that explodes in your hands, you can sue them. If a drug company makes drugs that are full of adulterated products that cause harms that are not disclosed that kill people, you can sue them. If an automobile maker makes cars that explode, you can sue ‘em. Not these companies. No (obnoxious fake chuckle), not these companies. These companies have a special immunity from suit.
So, basically all of that is bullshit. 100% bullshit. Unadulterated, harmful bullshit. Can we sue Hawley over that? Of course not. Because he has immunity. Why? Well, first, as an elected official he has a special immunity just for Congress under the speech & debate clause.
But also, because of the 1st Amendment. He is free to mislead the public with impunity because the 1st Amendment allows it.
To respond to the specifics here: (1) Section 230’s immunity does not apply to CSAM. (2) The immunity that is provided to all internet users and websites (not just some special industry) only applies to holding one party liable for a third party’s speech. (3) The examples of physical harm are totally inapplicable here. If Facebook literally exploded and killed someone you could still sue. The problem is that Facebook doesn’t explode. It’s not “Facebook” that is causing the harm here, it’s users on Facebook and their speech. And that’s why the 1st Amendment issue comes back up again. Which Hawley pretends not to understand. Oh, and also the claim that the tech industry isn’t “doing anything” is proven directly and obviously false by his chart in the image above, which shows they are reporting tons of accounts to NCMEC.
Thankfully, Senator Ron Wyden stood up to object to Hawley, and did so passionately. He highlighted how terrible CSAM is and the “monsters” behind it. But noted that the STOP CSAM bill does not actually help. Indeed, the attack on encryption in STOP CSAM would put people at much greater risk by removing important protections from everyone.
He also highlighted his own bill (which again, everyone is ignoring) which actually would help protect kids.
Hawley then got back up and claimed that the bill explicitly says it doesn’t outlaw encryption, but that’s incredibly misleading. It pretends to do so, just like similar language in the EARN IT Act did. It says that the bill shouldn’t be interpreted to impact encryption, but still allows plaintiffs to point to encryption as evidence of negligence, thereby making it a liability to offer encrypted communications.
Wyden followed up by pointing out that it’s weird that Hawley is even pushing this bill right now, when Senator Durbin (who is the author/sponsor of the bill) is currently going around shopping a greatly amended version of the bill (Hawley was pushing for unanimous consent on the old version).
Of course, this was all theater. Hawley knew it wasn’t going to happen. He just wanted airtime to lie about the tech industry and about Section 230. Because better to do that kind of grandstanding than to deal with his own home state press calling out his support for insurrectionists, or how he’s making the problem at the border worse himself because he thinks it will harm President Biden.
Hawley, of course, is not a real leader. He needs to deflect and distract. And that’s all this little show was. That he’s using children as props and lying about the law is a small consequence for him as he tries to lead a populist charge to hide his own failings.
Filed Under: encryption, grandstanding, josh hawley, protect the children, ron wyden, section 230, stop csam
Comments on “Josh Hawley Rages Ignorantly And Misleadingly In Trying To Push Encryption-Destroying STOP CSAM Bill”
Hawley, like all similar politicians is angry because big tech does not work to promote the party view, or work tirelessly to monitor all citizens for acts against the party view. Like all authoritarians anybody that does not fully support their politics is an enemy to be defeated.
Re: Re:
How about we outlaw Authoritarianism or even Totalitarianism? Because I feel like outlawing those kind of people and even outlawing people that support Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism would give people a sense of total permanent freedom. Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism is the long running work of The Devil.
Re: Re:
One, if we were to ‘outlaw’ totalitarianism or authoritarianism, you can not outlaw authoritarianism without outlawing totalitarianism. Therefore, your question should be “How about we outlaw Totalitarianism or even Authoritarianism?”. The other way is nonsensical. the setup is to go from more narrow to broader.
Secondly, as the US and UK have been repeatedly shown in the last 8 years, no law intended to curb corruption is immune from the corruption it polices. No authority can be relied upon to police its own use of authority. The same authority that puts the guardrails on, can take those guardrails off. That is why attempts to bind future budgets to spending caps in the US fail. Because the next congress can just bypass them.
Secondly, how? Authoritarianism is an idea. It isn’t even a full ideology. You don’t outlaw ideas. Anytime the government has control, some level of authoritarian control exists. Problems arise when an authoritarian concentrates government power in a limited trusted few, and divests power that can not be concentrated to non-government supporters. But these moves often come with excuses that can be accepted as not pure authoritarian efforts, because motive is important to a claim of authoritarian power grabs. Even if you could create a law that could identify and block authoritarian policies, Any authoritarian worth their salt could easily ammend and water down prior legislation before consolidating power, assuming the authoritarian could not exercise authoritarian control of law enforcement to prevent any enforcement of anti-authoritarian laws in the first place. By the time you are considering totalitarianism, the fox is already in the hen house.
Thirdly, work on your rhetoric. Outlawing people? We can outlaw action, we can’t outlaw people. Right here you call for judicial punishment of people for holding ideas. You would absolutely be caught up in the mix of authoritarians being outlawed for their ideas.
Re: Re:
Sure.
The cost? The death al every single human on the planet, including you.
If you think that’s the price to pay for outlawing an idea, go ahead.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have any other and better ideas to stop the Authoritarianism Ideals, I’m all ears.
Re: Re: Re:2
Authoritarian ideals only survive when the population is economically stratified and poorly educated.
Re: Re: Re:2
Rather than embrace authoritarianism to defeat authoritarianism, the way to fight authoritarianism is to recognize the issues with these ideologies, recognize the warning signs, to rhetorically challenge them, and when an authoritarian acts, respond. Authoritarians succeeed because those in comfort just go along to maintain their comfort. Challenge laws, engage in civil disobedience. Make authoritarian action costly.
This requires educating yourself and others on the difference between a government doing anything and a government that is authoritarian. But so would outlawing authoritarianism, so i don’t think my suggestion is weaker than yours
What happens when you ask a narcissist, an idiot, a moralist, a racist, a homophobe, and an absolute buffoon to screw in a light?
You get a broken bulb, a broken light switch, a ton of shame, blame,, and most importantly, a broken bulb.
Re:
Donald Trump orders someone else to do it, then refuses to pay them for the job.
Re:
A narcissist, an idiot, a moralist, a racist, a homophobe, and an absolute buffoon walk into a bar.
The bartender says, “Hi, Senator.”
Re:
Q: How many MAGA supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. Donald claims he fixed it, and his supporters cheer for him in the dark.
Re: Re:
Donald fixed it with his mind.
Re: Re:
This is, sadly, the correct answer.
Politicians who put forth “think of the children” laws think less about children and more about pet causes they can advance by using children as inanimate props. If someone can prove me wrong on this matter, feel free to do exactly that.
Josh Hawley does not believe the things that Josh Hawley says.
This is the only industry in the country that can make a product that will literally kill you and, if it does, you cannot do anything about it. If it kills your child, you can’t do anything about it. If it harms you, you can’t do anything about it. Just think about it for a second.
Whoa! I thought this was the firearms industry.
Re:
I thought you were talking about legislation.
Re:
We ignore all the indirect products of industry.
Re:
If you’re attempting to describe social media with your comment, what was the catastrophically damaging crainal trauma you suffered that led you to do so?
Mind, coming from Insurrectionist-Supporter Hawley it's not that shocking...
It takes being a truly vile and disgusting person to look at the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and have the first and apparently only thought come to your mind be ‘Now how can I use that for personal gain?’
Re: Mind, coming from Insurrectionist-Supporter Hawley it's not that shocking...
Unfortunately that describes many of today’s congress-critters. I would say it’s more the MAGA-nutjobs, but there are also plenty of Democrats in the mix. Such as Blumenthal.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Meanhvile Lindsey Graham will seek unanimous consent for the Earn It Act, Stop, the csam act Shield Act, the Report Act and the Protect Safe Childhood Act
I have read on daily communication the following thing Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will seek unanimous consent (UC) for five committee-passed kids’ online safety bills, he told reporters Tuesday.
The package includes the Earn It Act, Stop Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act, the Shield Act, the Report Act and the Protect Safe Childhood Act (see 2305110048 and 2305020053). Graham said he will schedule meetings with Democrats when Congress returns from a break on Feb. 26.
By seeking unanimous consent, bill sponsors will discover who objects, he said: “The people who object better have a damn good reason.” He conceded the effort may not result in final passage But it’s not going to be because of a lack of trying. So, I’m just going to push, push, push. I think if you push hard enough, long enough, the wall break
Re:
shut the fuck up spammer
Re:
can you not spam the comment section with your repeating questions
Re:
Bad boy
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
if lindsey graham unanimous consent is succesful and it pass the senate will the house stop it
i need your thoughts.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
link to the article of communiation daily
here it is a link to daily communication article :
https://communicationsdaily.com/article/2024/02/07/graham-pushing-unanimous-consent-for-judiciarys-kids-online-safety-bills-2402060084
Re:
shut up spammer
Re:
Please stop spamming the comments section. You’re not doing anything good by doing so.
Re: Re: I mean...
They did a good thing by sharing stuff from an otherwise paywalled article but spamming the comments section just annoys people.
The energy would be better spent telling groups that have a dog in this like Fight For The Future and EFF.
Re:
I believe that you will get a more positive and helpful response from other commenters if you (a) leave only one comment at a time, (b) provide a link to the item you wish to share and (c) quote or summarize the relevant portions of paywalled material. (For example, we don’t need to read the ten-billionth comment from a politician delivering empty rhetoric about protecting the children, but specific dates and names of bills are informative.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
End to end encryption is a laughable joke when you consider that every bit of hardware, software, apps, internet providers will all be able to see it unencrypted when it is transmitted by the sender and opened by the receiver. And of course the FBI insisted on being backdoor men to everyone that uses the internet. So, i doubt that encryption will be of any use to anyone.
Secret Decoder Rings on sale now! Don’t miss this once in a lfetime opportunity! ( just for the record, i am not actually selling any secret decoder rings)
Re:
Wut?
Re: Re:
andrea is literally just completely insane. Paranoid delusional.
Re:
So, you don’t know how the tech works?
Family research council
For those who do not understand what Senator Hawley is doing. Senator Hawley knows his UC or unanimous consent will not pass, He is working with the family research council to find Senators who oppose the kids safety bills so they can target them with threats and ads to say they hate children and want children killed. Family Research Council and Senator Hawley. Tell the parents of those suppose it dead kids why did there parents give them a cell phone? Again it’s to target senators that go against the family research council political agenda. We must fight them
I dunno about that. Judging by the video, he was way out in front of the pack on January 6th. . . .
Re:
Hawley is more like the knights that acted on ‘will nobody rid me of that troublesome priest’.
Re:
He wasn’t the first one to start running, but apparently he was faster than the rest of the pack.
I cannot get the images of Josh Hawley out of my mind: first saluting the Jan 6 Fascist insurrectionists, then running from them for his dear life mere moments later. Josh Hawley is a world-class, chrome-plated ass — which makes me wonder about the mob of asses that would actually elect this clown as their Senator.
Rage
They’re not going to stop until they’ve completed the Devil’s work of enslaving everyone with not just encryption destroying bills but mass surveillance too.
The Devil is at work and no one seems to be stopping it.
If anything, it feels like people are giving up instead of fighting harder.
Re:
Just a tip but framing it as ‘the Devils work’ is probably not going to help people take the issue more seriously.
Some day Senator Wyden will not longer be there. That will be a bad day, and a sad day. He knows more about the internet than just about anybody on Capitol Hill.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
My comment from this page was removed by someone. There is not anything that says that it was removed as I have seen comments that have been flagged with an explanation.
All they have to do is tell Hawley that there is a horde of rabid people outside and he’ll run so fast the shit won’t have time to stick in his underwear.
Let them be the first
Let the politicians barking about encryption allowing criminal activity, be the first ones to be forced to use easily cracked or bypassed encryption. Say like, all their banking encryption should be replaced with ROT13 (before you say it, I know ROT13 is not encryption, but a simple cypher). Then everyone will be able to see if there is any criminal activity going on in their bank accounts!
Was Josh Hawley also the child sex trafficker, or was that one of his other Florida Fascist buddies?
Explained that for Hawley. I mean, if somebody who’s considered retarded (me) can get this, why can’t he?