Senator Manchin Tries To Sneak His Dangerous ‘See Something, Say Something’ Attack On The Internet Into The Must Pass NDAA
from the it's-christmas-time dept
It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas… in that politicians who couldn’t pass their terrible and destructive bills through normal means are trying to light up various must pass funding and omnibus end-of-year bills with those failed bills as amendments. It happens every year like clockwork, and I’m sure we’ll be noting some other attempts to sneak through bad bills, but last week, Senator Joe Manchin pushed to have his absolutely terrible “See Something, Say Something” bill attached to the National Defense Authorization Act, better known as the NDAA, and long considered a “must pass” so that we have, you know, a military doing stuff.
If you don’t recall the See Something, Say Something bill, we wrote up a long deconstruction of it two years ago, when he first pushed this monstrosity. It’s a direct attack on Section 230, in that it would force companies to file “Suspicious Transmission Activity Reports” (STAR) for basically anything “suspicious” they see online.
You know how under the law right now, if a website finds child sexual abuse material, it needs to report it to NCMEC? Well, this law basically expands that to… well… everything. See someone mention drugs? File a report! See someone slightly mean to someone else? File a STAR. See someone joke about a bomb? STAR. On and on and on.
The law applies to “known suspicious transmission” which means it will actually encourage websites to take a less proactive approach to reviewing content, because they will claim that if they don’t look, they couldn’t have known. Still, the law says it covers content the website “should have reasonably known” about as well, meaning that even if you take the eyes-covered approach, you still have to litigate whether you should have magically known about this bad thing found online.
Of course, we already know that the original “see something, say something” program (which is trademarked by the NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority, who is crazy fucking litigious about it) has been a complete and total disaster. It has a long history of basically encouraging overly paranoid bigots to report everything they find suspicious about non-white people, and it has resulted in floods of useless reports that the police have to sort through, and almost no actual useful, actionable data.
And now, Senator Joe Manchin wants to recreate that mess… but for everything on the internet.
And he wants to do it by quietly hiding his bill in the must pass NDAA, even though this bill has fuck all to do with the military.
It’s a terrible idea that makes no sense, but I guess you could say the same thing about Senator Manchin himself.
Anyway, you might want to let your Senators know not to support this terrible legislation that would not just force websites into a ton of useless busywork, but would also flood the government with totally useless STAR reports that keep them from doing actual useful work.
Filed Under: joe manchin, say something, section 230, see something, see something say something, star report


Comments on “Senator Manchin Tries To Sneak His Dangerous ‘See Something, Say Something’ Attack On The Internet Into The Must Pass NDAA”
Do you think it will pass ?
Do you think joe manchin will successed to attach the see something say something into the ndaa ?
Re:
Too early to say for sure.
Re:
Anything is possible.
Re:
Anything is possible. It’s too early to say for sure but you MIGHT wanna contact your senator and express your desire to see it NOT added.
Re:
They managed to force a fucking surveillance thing into a fucking military spending bill.
They will certainly fucking try, and they might actually get it.
And MIGHT is a good enough excuse to actually do something about these NeoNazi thugs.
Re:
Does anyone think Benjamin will ever stop spamming useless dumb questions?
Re: Re:
What is dumb about his question?
Re:
Even if its attached to the bill and then passed would it even be constitutional?
Re: Re:
On 4th amendment grounds? Hell no. It’s turns websites into arms of law enforcement.
By any reasonable metric given the broadness of the bill? No. I’d bet courts would laugh at this bill, the burden here is ludicrous.
Re:
Very likely vriska, both sides want censorship.
Re:
Definitely they will.
Once you bring it to attention, it definitely will pass.
Every politician is a STAR.
Re:
Every politician is two STARs, specifically the ones between “a” and “hole”.
Prediction: It gets attached to the debt ceiling bill in 2023. It passes by extortion. The tech world responds by flooding the system with not-quite-false alarms. (Well, the person could have meant that a crime was intended!)
Re:
techie sabotage or not, the law will be used to target anyone that some official is trying to bring down. Facebook and the like have the lawyer power to cross the Ts when needed but anyone small could be ‘audited’ for too many or too few or just not quite the right number of STARs.
How soon could the NDAA come up for vote?
Re:
After the Midterms.
This bill...
Seems like it could cause a significant increase in the federal budget if they actually funded enough people and systems to review the billions of reports that would have to be submitted annually. Especially if sites went into malicious compliance mode and reported every post that gets moderated out with an individual report.
Sen Manchin clearly doesn’t have an understanding of the scale at which the internet operates.
Did anyone ever told Manchin that only shooting STARs break the mold?
I see something
I see shady congressmen trying to sneak shitty laws into defense bills. Where do I report?
Question
How does this all work? Can just any idiot in Congress staple some papers to other papers and say “This is now a single bill!”? And everyone else just has to hope they all decide not to pass it later?
Is the US congress really just a weird game of shenanigans and hijinks where people can sneak stuff into bills at the last second and to hell with democracy?
Re:
Well it’s a bit more complicated than that. There is a process and has to be accepted as an amendment but yes. The NDAA and the annual budget bills are rife with congressmen and senators tacking on their pet project bills that either didn’t get very far, stalled, or were rejected.
It’s how the CLOUD Act got passed. By it getting tacked onto a budget bill despite never getting a hearing in congress.
That’s why these bills are often referred to as “christmas tree bills”.
If it could stand on it's own merits it would have.
Another fine example of why bills should be limited to a single topic and be barred from tacking on unrelated garbage.
If you want to pass something that will be legally binding on countless other people then your attempt should be required to stand or fall on it’s own merits; attempting to staple it to a ‘must-pass’ bill just shows that even you know your bill/idea is garbage that has no merits to stand on.
It’s not a bad law it just requires something like Daedalus from Deus ex: an AI construct monitoring and analyzing all electronic communications in real time.
Under control of the GOP Illuminati ofcourse.