![]() Office of Management and Budget guidance requires that SORNs be reviewed on a continual basis. The process begins with either the update or submission of a new PTA. ![]() For systems and programs that require only PTAs and PIAs, the process begins again three years after the document is complete or when there is an update/change to the system or program, whichever comes first. Please join us in telling Congress not to pass the STOP CSAM Act.Once the PTA, PIA, and SORN are completed, they are reviewed periodically by the DHS Privacy Office (timing varies by document type and date approved). It’s outrageous to include a law that would have such a huge impact on speech in must-pass legislation without full discussion. If elected lawmakers want to limit our free speech, they should just admit it and debate the issue. To mitigate the risk of new civil lawsuits and administrative proceedings, platforms would censor more and more user content and accounts, with minimal regard as to whether that content is in fact legal. This system would certainly be gamed by bad actors, exposing platforms and users to bogus takedown requests, likely involving First Amendment-protected content involving sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The bill also creates a convoluted notice-and-takedown regime that allows individuals to file complaints against companies to remove alleged CSAM from their platforms. This law would create a new exception to Section 230’s partial immunity, exposing providers to more lawsuits. Section 230 creates the legal breathing room for internet intermediaries to create online spaces for people to freely communicate around the world, with low barriers to entry. The STOP CSAM Act also poses significant threats to free speech online. TELL CONGRESS NOT TO OUTLAW ENCRYPTED APPS Bad Actors Will Push Online Services to Censor Legal Speech Existing law already requires online service providers who have actual knowledge of “apparent” CSAM on their platforms to report that content to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which is essentially a government entity. Though the bill specifies that a platform must have “knowledge” of the illegal content in order to be criminally liable, and that it is a defense that the company cannot remove it (such as when it is encrypted content uploaded by a user without the providers’ knowledge), the question remains why this new crime is needed when it is already a federal crime for anyone to promote or distribute CSAM. It’s likely that plaintiffs will argue that companies merely offering end-to-end encryption are “recklessly” enabling the sharing of illegal content on their platforms by failing to scan for and remove that content. If encryption can be introduced as evidence of the facilitation of illegal material, the bill potentially allows people to be sued or prosecuted for even merely providing an encrypted app. The exception purports to protect online platforms from liability for offering encrypted services, but it specifically allows the use of encryption to be introduced as evidence of the facilitation of illegal material. This bill introduces the same misleading “encryption exception” found in the EARN IT Act, which we’ve written about at length. It harms internet users who rely on intermediaries to speak online-that is, all of us. Taken together, these provisions greatly endanger encrypted communications and protections that ensure platforms can operate. It creates a notice-and-takedown system overseen by a newly created Child Online Protection Board.It creates a new civil claim and corresponding Section 230 carveout based on the lower standard of “recklessness”. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |