This theoretically attacks child sexual abuse and Internet porn using children…it’s like when people used to take their photos to be developed and the store could report them if the photos showed child abuse.
I know people who have worked in the investigation of cybercrimes against minors - which ranges from grooming to sending dick pix to torture and snuff pictures - and the reach of this is horrifying.
So in theory this is not a bad thing. But the problem is that once you give the government the power to do this, it never stops there.
In fact, it never even stops at crime, and becomes political at once and then the state can legally pursue its enemies - who have nothing to do with child abuse.
I’d say a big thumbs down. It’s like the “War on Terror” and the TSA, which theoretically were supposed to protect us from attacks by Muslim terrorists but immediately turned into domestic surveillance of political enemies and now, with the TSA, into enforcement of unconstitutional government “mandates.”
So I’d say it’s a no, regardless of how well intentioned.
The key words are “and for other purposes”. That gives them a blank check to do whatever they want and we know they intend to do a lot more. Definitely a “Not only no but h*** NO!”
I’m disgusted, though not at all surprised, to see Marsha Blackburn’s name on the co-sponsor list. I refused to vote for her because I knew what a RINO she is.