490
KOSA is dead! (US) (www.fightforthefuture.org)
submitted 4 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/technology@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/20332183

Fight for the Future writes:

"The controversial and unconstitutional Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is officially dead in the House of Representatives. Reporting indicates that there was significant opposition to the bill within the Republican caucus, and it faced vocal opposition from prominent progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rep Maxwell Frost (D-FL)."

Evan Greer:

"KOSA was a poorly written bill that would have made kids less safe. I am so proud of the LGBTQ youth and frontlines advocates who have led the opposition to this dangerous and misguided legislation. It’s good that this unconstitutional censorship bill is dead for now, but I am not breathing a sigh of relief. It’s infuriating that Congress wasted so much time and energy on a deeply flawed and controversial bill while failing to advance real measures to address the harms of Big Tech like privacy, antitrust and algorithmic justice legislation. "

Thanks to everybody who took action ove the last year to stop this bill!

89
KOSA is dead! (US) (www.fightforthefuture.org)
submitted 4 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/bad_internet_bills

Fight for the Future writes:

"The controversial and unconstitutional Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is officially dead in the House of Representatives. Reporting indicates that there was significant opposition to the bill within the Republican caucus, and it faced vocal opposition from prominent progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rep Maxwell Frost (D-FL)."

Evan Greer:

"KOSA was a poorly written bill that would have made kids less safe. I am so proud of the LGBTQ youth and frontlines advocates who have led the opposition to this dangerous and misguided legislation. It’s good that this unconstitutional censorship bill is dead for now, but I am not breathing a sigh of relief. It’s infuriating that Congress wasted so much time and energy on a deeply flawed and controversial bill while failing to advance real measures to address the harms of Big Tech like privacy, antitrust and algorithmic justice legislation. "

Thanks to everybody who took action ove the last year to stop this bill!

45
submitted 6 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/technology@lemmy.world

Legislators are considering attaching KOSA (the anti-LGBTQ+ censorship bill, aka the Kids Online Safety Act) to must-pass legislation authorizing the FAA. As EFF points out, the latest version of KOSA is still a censorship bill.

So if you're in the US, it's once again a good time to contact your Congresspeople. EFF's got an action here that makes it makes it easy, and so does https://www.stopkosa.com/

9
submitted 6 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/politics@beehaw.org

Legislators are considering attaching KOSA (the anti-LGBTQ+ censorship bill, aka the Kids Online Safety Act) to must-pass legislation authorizing the FAA. As EFF points out, the latest version of KOSA is still a censorship bill.

So if you're in the US, it's once again a good time to contact your Congresspeople. EFF's got an action here that makes it makes it easy, and so does https://www.stopkosa.com/

10
submitted 6 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/bad_internet_bills

Legislators are considering attaching KOSA (the anti-LGBTQ+ censorship bill, aka the Kids Online Safety Act) to must-pass legislation authorizing the FAA. As EFF points out, the latest version of KOSA is still a censorship bill.

So if you're in the US, it's once again a good time to contact your Congresspeople. EFF's got an action here that makes it makes it easy, and so does https://www.stopkosa.com/

34
submitted 7 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
8
submitted 7 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/bad_internet_bills
14
submitted 7 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/bad_internet_bills

if you’re in the US, now’s a great time to contact your Senators. You can either call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or use the Senate directory to look up your legislators’ contact info.

“Stop the FBI from expanding warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans. The House reauthorization contains the largest expansion of FISA Section 702 since it was created in 2008. Please oppose it -- and please oppose any attempt to reauthorize FISA Section 702 that doesn’t include warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to the government by data brokers.”

18
submitted 7 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/bad_internet_bills

I'm not wild about the headline -- it's the Biden administration that's pushing for this bill, so why let them off the hook? It's one of those rare issues that cut across partisan lines, with reformers and surveillance hawks in both parties working together. Still, the article makes some very good points.

The legislation, which would reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, includes a provision that would broaden the types of businesses that agencies can compel to help the government spy without a warrant..... The fact sheet says the change closes “a dangerous loophole,” and calls it a “carefully crafted and narrowly tailored fix.”

But experts say the provision is extremely broad — and that it could potentially allow agencies to enlist office landlords, security guards, and cleaning crews as spies, without a warrant, and demand they help the government tap into communications equipment to facilitate data collection.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 16 points 7 months ago

The FBI routinely uses its authority under FISA Section 702 to get information on Americans without a warrant, ignoring the processes that are supposed to be put in place to protect people. This has nothing to do with the FISA Title III authority that was used to get information about Carter Page, no matter what you and Trump think. If you warrantless surveillance of Americans is good, then by all means you should indeed be cheering this vote -- because they extended the scope of what information they can get at without a warrant.

If on the other hand you think civil liberties are worth protecting, then you might take a moment to stop to think that there was bipartisan support, including progressive Democrats, for introducing reforms like a warrant requirement while still keeping the ability to surveil foreign agents in place. But opinions differ, there are plenty of people in both parties who don't think civil liberties are worth protecting, so if you're one of them you've got a lot of company.

152
submitted 7 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/politics@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15271710

Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.

26
submitted 7 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/bad_internet_bills

Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.

25
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by thenexusofprivacy to c/politics@lemmy.world

EFF's update also has a handy form to contact Congress. Their summary:

"Section 702 is Big Brother’s favorite mass surveillance law that EFF has been fighting since it was first passed in 2008. The law is currently set to expire on April 19.

Yesterday’s decision not to decide is good news, at least temporarily. Once again, a bipartisan coalition of law makers—led by Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Jerrold Nadler—has staved off the worst outcome of expanding 702 mass surveillance in the guise of “reforming” it. But the fight continues and we need all Americans to make their voices heard. "

[-] thenexusofprivacy 26 points 7 months ago

Back in December, they tried to get an even WORSE FISA extension bill through as part of the NDAA -- without even a vote on it -- and the pushback was strong enough that they abandoned the plan. In 2020 grassroots activism kept them from rauthorizing Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act . In 2015 grassroots activism kept them from doing a straight reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. So there really is a track record of it being effective on this issue.

The key dynamic here is that both parties are split on the issue -- progressive Dems along with Libertarian and MAGA Republicans all favor reform. So even representatives in a district that one party always wins have to consider the politics: Republicans wanting to keep their MAGA cred against MAGA challengers, Democrats facing progressive challengers (or progressive Dems who need strong support from their base against centrist challengers). Plus there are a handful of centrist Dems in purple districts who might vote the right way if it can pick up some Republican votes.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 19 points 10 months ago

Totally agreed that it opens things up to censorship in general and doesn't actually make kids safer. Charlie Jane Anders' The Internet Is About to Get A Lot Worse sets it in the context of book banning. The LGBTQ part is in the headlines because one big focus of the advocacy against it is highlighting that Democrats who claim to be pro-LGBTQ should not be backing this bill. This has been effective enough that Senators Cantwell and Markey both mentioned it in the committee markup, although it's certainly far from the only problem with the bill.

Sec. 11 (b): Enforcement By State Attorneys General covers this. It's hard to find -- the bill text starts out with all the text removed from the previous amendment, and if you click on the "enforcement" link in the new table of context it takes you to the old struck-out text. It's almost like they want to make it as hard as possible for people to figure out what's going on!

[-] thenexusofprivacy 14 points 10 months ago

They get to position themselves as looking out for the children.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 20 points 10 months ago

Yes, exactly. For Senators who support LGBTQ+ rights and reproductice rights (or at least say that they do), focusing on the threat anti-trans AGs can be very effective; In Washington state, we put enough pressure on Cantwell last fall about the LGBTQ+ issues that she mentioned it in the hearing (as did Markey). 5calls and EFF's scripts and emails are written to appeal to legislators from both parties (so just talk about the harms to kids and threats from state AGs in general terms), which makes sense for a one-size-fits-all form, but customizing it to your Senators' priorities can make a lot of sense.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 16 points 1 year ago

WTF indeed. But, thanks for emailing them -- they track how much email they get in each direction, and if there's enough they may rethink their position.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 28 points 1 year ago

!bad_internet_bills@lemmy.sdf.org is tracking all the bad internet bills ... right now KOSA's where the most action is.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 25 points 1 year ago

Agreed. At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, both Cantwell and Markey said they had heard from a lot of consituents about the bill's problems, especially for LGBTQ+ people, and that there's work to do before going forward ... so at least the pushback is getting noticed.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 18 points 1 year ago

That's disappointing ... but, enough pressure can get them to change their position (or, almost as good, ask Schumer not to bring the bill to the floor so that they don't have to take a politically costly vote). In the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, both Cantwell and Markey voted yes but said they had gotten a lot of calls and email from constituents who were concerned about the impact on LGBTQ+ teens so there was work to do before bringing the bill to the floor ... so the pressure is definitely getting noticed!

[-] thenexusofprivacy 45 points 1 year ago

here's the list of cosponsors ... if they're there, then they're certainly supporting it. It's worth contacting them in any case; they'll often send you a form reply saying their position on the bill.

[-] thenexusofprivacy 19 points 1 year ago

Plenty of Democrats support this anti-LGBTQ+ bill -- here's the list of cosponsors. It really does have bipartisan support!

[-] thenexusofprivacy 15 points 1 year ago

That's true, and legislation that passes in the US also influences legislation elsewhere. However quite a few people from outside the US have repeatedly asked for discussions of this and other legislation to include something in the title that indicates that it relates to US legislation, so I went with US-specific on this post.

view more: next ›

thenexusofprivacy

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF