HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »
HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »

News Orgs Attack Big Tech For Being Bad For Privacy... While Their Lobbying Against Big Tech Will Harm Privacy

from the guys,-come-on dept

It's kind of difficult to take "privacy advocates" seriously if they're supportive of the EARN IT Act and its structure that would effectively enable the Attorney General to ban real encryption. That's why it was so ridiculous that vocal privacy advocate non-profit EPIC (in the midst of a truly horrifying scandal in which its President exposed employees to COVID-19 without telling them) came out in favor of the EARN IT Act. As with so much that EPIC does, the issue was more that they saw EARN IT as "anti-big tech companies" and to hell with how it actually impacts privacy and encryption.

This is an ongoing problem. Many people who (whether for good reasons or not) dislike big internet companies seem way too willing to embrace bills that appear aimed against them as a sort of "stick it to them" attack, rather than recognizing the long term impact of those bills. We've seen that in the past with bills from the EU's Copyright Directive, the GDPR, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), all of which some groups supported solely because it would "be bad" for Google, Facebook and other internet giants, without recognizing the wider impact.

Apparently we can add big news publishers to this list as well. While papers like the NY Times and the Washington Post have run a bunch of stories about how "big tech" is bad about privacy, it's difficult to take them seriously when their lobbyists are out there lobbying in favor of a bill that would ban encryption. And yet, there is the News Media Alliance, formerly the Newspaper Association of America, cheerfully attacking Section 230 of the CDA (which, someone should remind them, all of their websites rely on...) at the DOJ's hearing back in February. Because the EARN IT Act is structured in a way to try to play Section 230 and encryption off of one another, the News Media Alliance's support of attacking 230 gives cover to the EARN IT Act's effective chipping away at encryption.

And that should greatly concern all of the journalists who work for these newspapers, like the NY Times and the Washington Post among others. Reporters at those newspapers rely heavily on encryption as they cultivate sources. And the newspapers themselves rely strongly on Section 230 to protect them against bogus SLAPP suits, even as they pretend that Section 230 is a "special favor" for large tech companies.

The end result, as with EPIC, is that it seems that the focus on "big internet companies are the problem" means that they're compromising on their own principles in order to "punish" the big internet companies. Suggesting Section 230 should be amended gives cover to the plan to trade Section 230 protections for undermining encryption -- thereby undermining both. And that's really dangerous, given that news reporters and news sites rely on both strong encryption and on Section 230.

The News Media Alliance is playing a dangerous game, while being blinded by its dislike of big internet companies.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cda 230, earn it, earn it act, encryption, section 230


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Thad (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 12:34pm

    Headline

    The headline doesn't quite read coherently. I think maybe the word "That" should be removed?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Clint, 23 Apr 2020 @ 12:47pm

      Re: Headline

      I think the "Their" should maybe be "they're". This, "Tech firms attack... while they're lobbying".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2020 @ 2:55pm

      Re: Headline

      But Grammarly can help!

      ... have I watched too much Youtube lately?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 5:17pm

      Re: Headline

      Bah. That's what I get for a last second attempt to rewrite the headline. I had a different one and just as it was going live I tried to write it and left in stuff that I didn't mean to...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2020 @ 6:33am

        Re: Re: Headline

        "Their" is correct in the possessive sense. The same orgs that push for privacy also "own" anti-encryption lobbying efforts. The headline is pointing out that they say one thing but are doing another. Compare/contrast.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2020 @ 1:39pm

    "We believe we don't need Section 230 since we ditched our comments section, and no one else should need it either."

    i.e., we don't need the First Amendment, nor proper placement of liability. Seriously, we don't. We have thought very carefully about this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 1:23am

      Re:

      More like: we believe we were much better off (i.e. much more profitable) when media was a non-interactive broadcast, and we'll happily force everyone else to revert to that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alan, 23 Apr 2020 @ 7:58pm

    RE: Paragraph 2, it's the California Consumer Privacy Act, not Protection Act.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.