My interpretation is, the bill will remove liability shield for “online publisher” for CSAM. This then effectively means that no online platform may use end to end encryption to protect their user, for fear of liability.
Individual user, and those who own the content of their website, are free to use E2E if they choose to, whatever benefit that still gives.
Anticipation of this law feels like why Apple went through its CSAM debacle. Expect to see more content scanning after this passes. The CSAM DB Apple was said to be using will likely be “best practice” in how online service may get liability shield back.
I too don’t like how HN, FSF, EFF jumps straight to “encryption ban”. It spells fear that too much nuance will weaken their argument.
Individual user, and those who own the content of their website, are free to use E2E if they choose to, whatever benefit that still gives.
Anticipation of this law feels like why Apple went through its CSAM debacle. Expect to see more content scanning after this passes. The CSAM DB Apple was said to be using will likely be “best practice” in how online service may get liability shield back.
I too don’t like how HN, FSF, EFF jumps straight to “encryption ban”. It spells fear that too much nuance will weaken their argument.