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).

Image

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: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Josh Hawley Rages Ignorantly And Misleadingly In Trying To Push Encryption-Destroying STOP CSAM Bill”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
48 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
feldie47 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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

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?’

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

benjamin klein says:

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

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

blakestacey (profile) says:

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.

andrea iravani says:

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)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Manter Fields says:

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

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Michael Smith (profile) says:

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!

Anonymous Coward says:

In this country, 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 only if they’re responsible for the adulteration. If someone else did the tampering, then the drug company that produced the original product is held to not be responsible for any harm done as a result of the tampering. Section 230 is simply a quick way to the same result for websites. “The website didn’t publish the statement you’re complaining of, the user who clicked the submit button did, so we’re cutting your lawsuit here so you can save the money to go after the actual publisher of the potentially defamatory statements.”

Explained that for Hawley. I mean, if somebody who’s considered retarded (me) can get this, why can’t he?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...