
Why Everyone Should be Concerned By the Seizure of MyRedBook.com - panarky
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/whose-redbook-why-everyone-should-be-concerned-seizure-myredbookcom
======
panarky
This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their
post. The EFF only links to the legal and health forums, while the FBI claims
the sites "were used to facilitate prostitution" [0]:

    
    
      advertisements for prostitutes... menus of sexual services,
      hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of the
      prostitutes’ services.
    

You can see an example of an advertisement here (NSFW):
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myre...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID20/188351.html)

I'm not arguing for or against sex work, just illustrating that this takedown
is not a clear-cut case of censoring a vulnerable community's non-commercial
political speech.

Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead
of taking down legal material as well? I support the EFF in their important
work, but they're more credible and effective when they tell the whole story,
including the complicated part.

[0] [http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-
myredbook.com...](http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-
myredbook.com-website-arrested-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges)

~~~
Fuxy
It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue however
going against sex worker really?

What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to
do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt.

I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George
Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking
legal?"

~~~
dspillett
_> It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue_

Never assume any group is not doing this. Everyone makes more effort to
present the facts that support their case/cause than they do those
against/neutral. The EFF are better about not denying the truths they don't
like than many similarly vocal groups, but don't expect them to tell you the
facts that don't support their position.

 _> What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more
important to do_

They can't chose the laws that they concentrate on, really. The "don't you
have something more important to do officer" argument (as often sung by petty
criminals) is bunkum. They enact the law, all of it, and the reason they are
chasing the people committing lesser offences (in the offender's eyes at
least) is because people are committing lesser offences.

 _> "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"_

This is probably the answer to a certain extent: legalise it, regulate it to
try protect both the workers and the punters, and potentially tax it to cover
the cost of that regulation.

Though the legalisation argument as it is usually presented is rather
simplistic, and the effects it would have on major crime (for example people
trafficking) seems vastly over-stated IMO.

------
chatmasta
This is a move in the opposite direction of where the government should be
going. Sites like Myredbook, Backpage, Rubmaps (and at one time even
craigslist) are Hydratic. [1] like Hydra, when you take down one, two will
appear in its place. Has the FBI not learned by now that it does not have
jurisdiction over the entire internet? New sites can pop up in any non-FBI
jurisdiction or on Tor, and there isn't shit the FBI can do.

The FBI needs to accept that shutting down these sites is not a sustainable
option. Instead, it should _cultivate_ the sites that are in US jurisdiction,
and _allow_ them to operate, so that the FBI can use them to monitor illicit
activity.

Prositution is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. Unfortunately,
without legalizing and regulating prostitution worldwide, it's impossible to
disambiguate between an autonomous sex worker and a human trafficking victim.
But sites like these can really help with that disambiguation.

The FBI should be working toward this disambiguation. It should be filtering
out the sex workers from the human trafficking victims, because the latter are
the only actual victims in this business.

The FBI needs to realize that sites like these are an _asset_ to the fight
against human trafficking, because they facilitate monitoring and analyzing
the market. Shutting down these sites will not even make a dent in the demand
for prositution. It will simply drive that demand elsewhere, to underground
sites or ones outside of FBI jurisdiction.

This is a loss for human trafficking victims. By pushing this business further
underground, the FBI loses some monitoring and detection ability, traffickers
are likely angry, and victims lose the benefit of client accountability on
sites like Myredbook. This shutdown will not affect the supply of, or demand
for, human trafficking victims. It will only worsen their situation and
further hide it from authorities.

But hey, the FBI gets some nice PR pieces about their latest big bust! Yeah!
Go team! Such a formidable cyber security force!

[1] I invented the word "Hydratic," but it should totally become a thing.

~~~
onewaystreet
MyRedBook had been operating for more than a decade. It's highly unlikely that
the FBI just became aware of them in the last year. Something changed the
FBI's position.

~~~
prostoalex
Exactly, and if you're FBI, trying to bust prostitution and trafficking, what
better tool is out there than a Web site that conveniently spells out contact
details for those involved in such a trade. Open to anybody so that
screenshots with timestamps can be taken and attached to the case when it's
ready to be passed on to the prosecution.

Something must've changed, we're not getting the whole story here.

------
myredbookutoo
Throwaway for obvious reasons. I have been using myredbook and reading HN
regurarly too.

I think outlawing prostitution is the stupidest thing ever. Coercion, battery,
human trafficking -- these are all crimes themselves and these are what most
people are concerned about. It's a waste of time and effort. Removing a site
like this will achieve nothing except perhaps endanger some of the sex workers
-- think about it. Clients (for there will be clients, no doubt -- does anyone
think one advertisment site makes a difference?) can behave in worse ways cos
the forums are gone.

~~~
jqm
"Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- .....these are what most people are
concerned about."

Maybe this is what people __claim to be most concerned about. But I would
venture to guess more often than not, the real concerns are based on moral
prudery, religious dogma, and stogid ideas of what a family !must be.

~~~
makomk
Very much so. In particular, anti-trafficking groups are strongly opposed to
any solution to trafficking that doesn't involve making life harder and more
dangerous for sex workers and label anyone who actually listens to the workers
"pimps", as though respecting those women was somehow equivalent to forcing
them to have sex.

------
myredbookuser
I used myredbook to connect with, and buy sexual services from, several dozen
of sex workers. I'm also a regular HN reader, and this is a throwaway account
created just for this thread. AMA (ask me anything).

It asked by an HN moderator, I can provide proof.

~~~
woah
Do you feel that MyRedBook was in any way harmful to the well-being of the sex
workers? If not, was it contributing to the moral decay of western
civilization?

~~~
chris_mahan
Prostitution, despite being the oldest profession, seems to not have had a
negative impact on the development of western civilization. Western
civilization seems to be doing just fine.

------
jmspring
My read is the move was more about the money laundering than either
"protecting the children" or "facilitating prostitution".

The site was used by many local agencies to help with busts, etc.

Personally, I am against the takedown. The laws around consenting adults
engaging in private transactions should be legalized. My understanding is that
the site did have measures in place to help with the underage aspect, but that
is from reading more balanced news accounts.

~~~
stray8
The money laundering was the moving of funds to savings accounts, and other
accounts in his name or business name. It's money laundering because the
proceeds were allegedly derived from an illegal act. But not what people
typically think of money laundering.

------
JorgeJetson
I see much of the argument here is about "facilitating prostitution," that
such facilitation would trump free speech protections, both constitutionally
and in other laws. But the opposite is true, as highlighted by the EFF, third
parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to discuss
that activity and do not take responsibility for the actions or postings of
others. With respect to the Internet, there is a federal law, section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states that Web service
providers cannot be "treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider".

~~~
objclxt
> _third parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to
> discuss that activity_

What you're missing here is that they _don 't_ have a right to make money off
of it. RedBook weren't just facilitating the discussion of illegal activity,
they were making money out of the advertisements on the site. They were
directly involved in the illegal activity.

~~~
JorgeJetson
Actually, advertisements were free. They made money on enhanced reviews of
providers and clients. In other words, one could, for a fee, dig deeper into
reading comments between and about users of myredbook.

The owners of myredbook were still a third party in these comments and did
remove postings that could encourage child prostitution, robberies, or other
serious violent crimes.

------
delinka
Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards? Were they also used
(with or without their operators' consent) to conduct illegal sex trade? If
such activities were indeed happening without a site operators knowledge or
consent, did law enforcement reach out to these operators in an attempt to
curtail this activity? Too little information from EFF on this.

I'll agree that seizure of a discussion forum is truly a big problem. Simply
seizing one because someone disagrees with the topics under discussion is a
big problem. Not informing the operator of illegal activity before seizing is
potentially dirty (e.g. if the operator is not participating in or encouraging
the illegal activity.) Seizure of _anything_ without due process of law is
unacceptable and must be rectified.

But doing something illegal (regardless of whether it should be), having been
brought before a court, having failed to defend oneself or overturn the law,
and having property seized ... well, that's how it _should_ work.

So how did this particular case go exactly?

~~~
tinalumfoil
> Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards?

As many pointed out above, no. The majority of the forums looks to be
advertisements for prostitution [0].

> Were they also used (with or without their operators' consent) to conduct
> illegal sex trade?

According to the FBI, "the website hosted advertisements for prostitutes,
complete with explicit photos, lewd physical descriptions, menus of sexual
services, hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of the prostitutes’
services" and the owner "engaged in more than twenty monetary transactions to
launder the profits derived from the facilitation of prostitution" [1]. They
are now looking to forfeit $5 million of those profits.

> If such activities were indeed happening without a site operators knowledge
> or consent, did law enforcement reach out to these operators in an attempt
> to curtail this activity?

While I couldn't find a source directly saying weather they did or did not, I
would imagine it to be very difficult to collect enough evidence to go through
with the forfeiture and trial while the future defendant knows they are being
investigated.

[0]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123304/http://forum.myre...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123304/http://forum.myredbook.com/)

[1] [http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-
releases/2014/californ...](http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-
releases/2014/california-operators-of-myredbook.com-website-arrested-for-
facilitating-prostitution-and-money-laundering)

~~~
AJ007
The money laundering charge can be used to coerce the owner in to pleading
guilty to whatever else they want to add to the list -- whether or not there
is a case for it. Considering the age of the site, one would speculate that
the owner may have said no to something the government politely asked for, and
then ended up getting their insides turned out as a result.

The EFF certainly could have done a better job on this one. I'm not familiar
with the site, but this seems to be a very different situation than Craigslist
ran in to.

------
chris_mahan
It's ok. The next version of the internet won't be using DNS anyway.

------
harrystone
"Today we also lost extensive online forums for a community of sex workers to
keep each other safe, screen clients, and blacklist predators."

I'm hopelessly cynical at this point in my life, so I'm not surprised at all
that our government sees that as facilitating prostitution.

------
JorgeJetson
There are many similarities between the old laws prohibiting homosexuality and
laws prohibiting prostitution. both concern sexual behavior that are seen, by
some, as sexual deviance. Men are more likely than women to be concerned with
homosexuality. Whereas women are more likely than men to be concerned with
prostitution.

In both cases what drives the classification as illegality is icky-ness. A
heterosexual male cannot imagine having sex with another man - it is just icky
for him. Similar, a woman wanting a monogamous relationship, with romance,
sees prostitution as disgusting and just plain icky.

Most women cannot understand why any woman would become a prostitute. So they
imagine that there must be some awful reason: human trafficking, dominance by
a male (pimp), etc. For some prostitutes this is the case, but there are a
vast number of women who practice prostitution and it is not.

For these women selling sex is not icky - they explain it as being uplifting
since it provides a high level of financial security. They actually find it
difficult to understand why other women take issue with it. Their sexuality
may be different. I understand that bisexual women have a more male like sex
drive and I bet there are higher percentage of bisexuals in prostitution than
in the general population. Also lesbians may be over represented in
prostitution - the dildo just has a guy attached to it that pays the rent.

So I propose here that the laws against prostitution are driven by perceived
icky-ness (a form of sexual bigotry) as the laws against homosexuality.

------
Igglyboo
Does anyone find it weird that they left the google analytics scripts on the
seized pages? Or is it possibly more sinister in that they're seizing the
analytic data as well.

------
totoroisalive
Glad to read it was only the domain, It makes me sad the awful methods of
protecting the sensitive data of these kind of sites.

~~~
wtracy
The article states that servers were siezed as well.

~~~
taylor_fitz
I believe their servers were in the Cayman Islands.

------
gavanwoolery
Ironically our governing powers outlaw these services, while many of them
partake in them.

~~~
tadfisher
Misdirected hostility? We voted for them.

~~~
justinzollars
Let me translate that. "don't blame me i voted for kodos"

~~~
nomedeplume
Thanks.

------
mrbusr123
there are no sex slaves, underage girls in myredbook. True, there are pimps
and prostitutes from overseas, but no foul plays here.

~~~
NoPiece
These underage sex slaves were pimped on myredbook:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-
francisco...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco-
sex-slavery_n_2734350.html)

~~~
mrbusr123
users have always been alerted if there is any foul plays regarding how these
workers are treayed and reported any foul plays(robbery, violence, theft,
etc.)

i havent seen any ads exploiting them at all. most of times, workers are at
least 5-6 years older if not 10+ years than advertisement.

~~~
objclxt
You're dodging the question. You're equating pimping with violence, but that's
not always the case. How do you know sex workers who use RedBook were not, for
example, having to pay back bogus "debts" to their pimps for having to come
into the country? You've already said in a previous post that some sex workers
using RedBook were from overseas. I somehow doubt you were you asking them for
their I-94s as proof they were in the country legally.

I can fully believe there are a number of sex workers who found RedBook truly
useful, and provided an extra layer of safety and security. What I can't
believe is that for a line of work that is inherently illegal there were not
_at least some_ people who had abusive relationships with people coercing or
even forcing them into it. You seem to be suggesting not a single woman (or
man!) who used RedBook was being exploited, even a small minority. I think
you're being naive.

~~~
pessimizer
>What I can't believe is that for a line of work that is inherently illegal
there were not at least some people who had abusive relationships with people
coercing or even forcing them into it.

I also can't believe that for most lines of work that are entirely legal.
That's a very high bar.

------
sytelus
I'm wondering how this same argument would pan out if this was a website for
the "community" of drug dealers or child abusers to allow discussions of their
"problems" and protect their anonymity.

~~~
spacemanmatt
I just checked. All the major drug dealers' sites are up.

You probably just meant the drugs sold by cartels. I mean, just the non-
American cartels. I mean, the ones selling drugs we have made illegal here.
No, not those, I mean dangerous drugs. That kill/maim users. No, I'm not
talking about alcohol or tobacco or thalidomide. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. Right?

------
yeukhon
> EFF has always supported freedom of association and free speech, no matter
> who is doing the talking.

This sentence worries me the most. Anyone means, including those we believe
are threat to society (mass killing killer for example). Also those who make
racist remarks intentionally to embarrass others in public.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Free speech isn't _necessarily_ unlimited. It is often defined to exclude hate
speech, for example.

~~~
yeukhon
I am sorry, but that's not how I would interpret their statement. They make it
very clear "no matter who is talking."

~~~
ryanklee
"No matter Who is talking" =/= "no matter what is said"

