
Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation - snsr
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/internet-censorship-bill-would-spell-disaster-speech-and-innovation
======
rayiner
The Act is as bad as the EFF says it is. 18 U.S.C. 1591 makes illegal
"participation in a venture" which financially benefits from trafficking. This
bill defines "participation in a venture" to include "knowing conduct by an
individual or entity, by any means, that _assists, supports, or facilitates_
the violation."

That language _vastly_ expands potential liability. If a website knows that
its services are being used to somehow assist in sex trafficking,[1] the
website could be as culpable as the persons getting paid to coordinate the
shipping of sex slaves. It's completely bananas.

Here are the sponsors:

Rob Portman (R, Ohio) Richard Blumenthal (D, Connecticut) John McCain (R,
Arizona) Claire McCaskill (D, Missouri) John Cornyn (R, Texas) Heidi Heitkamp
(D, North Dakota)

[1] It's pretty much impossible to run a website that allows people to
communicate that isn't used for illegal purposes. For example, GMail is
_definitely_ used to facilitate a wide variety of illegal conduct. Up to now,
for criminal liability to exist, you had to go beyond knowing that your
service was used to assist criminal activity to taking special measures to
assist that criminal activity. This bill basically lowers the standard from
"having intent to assist the illegal activity" to "knowing that what you're
doing will somehow assist the illegal activity."

~~~
illumin8
I just wrote to Blumenthal and shared some info from your post. He's my
senator, and I agree with most of his policies, but this is seriously
misguided. Thanks for helping me to understand the chilling effect this bill
would potentially have on every popular online communications service.

I seriously cannot imagine how this would not put Facebook, Google, Reddit,
and every other online communications platform out of business overnight.

~~~
amelius
If Facebook's and Google's future is at risk, why haven't they done anything
to stop this bill?

~~~
CamperBob2
Because like almost all laws of this nature, the costs of compliance will harm
upstart competitors greatly while being a rounding error on the books of the
major incumbent players.

~~~
Buttons840
Agreed. Joe will end up in jail because his blog had a comment section. What
about Facebook? Are they going to put Facebook in jail?

------
Bartweiss
I swear, you can predict the quality of a law as the inverse of how good the
name sounds.

If this law were going to limit sex trafficking, it would have a name like
"Revisions to the Prosecution of Certain Interstate Crimes". But no, it's got
a big, gaudy name that poisons the well on any opposition whatsoever. So,
predictably, it will either endanger innocents or restrict basic rights. It's
like god damn clockwork.

~~~
boombip
Because if you have a cool name you can sell it solely based on the name. A
bill with a boring name must stand on its own two feet to pass.

~~~
PeCaN
Also, nobody wants to be the guy who opposed the “Stop Enabling Sex
Traffickers Act”.

------
primitivesuave
This is not some covert attack on Internet businesses, it is a well-
intentioned but misguided attempt by these senators to prevent adult service
websites (namely backpage.com) from enabling pimps and organized crime to
traffic victims with impunity under Section 230. Backpage actively helps
buyers and sellers remain anonymous _specifically for adult services_ , and
provides the means to avoid detection by law enforcement - Bitcoin payments,
encouraging prepaid credit cards, not requiring phone numbers for
verification, stripping metadata from images, etc. Interestingly, it requires
phone number verification for other classified sections on its website like
cars and boats, but for adult services it even offers a 10% discount for using
Bitcoin.

There could be a legal argument made that Backpage induces trafficking on its
website by not requiring verification for adult services, and is therefore
involved in the creation of its content and thus not protected under Section
230. Section 230 could also be amended specifically for adult content to
require verification and restrict anonymous payment methods. But the EFF is
absolutely correct that in its current form, this would be terrible for anyone
hosting content on the Internet because this amendment could be broadly
applied to illegal content posted on any content providers website, and
creates an incentive to have no filtering of content.

One recent development is this Washington Post article that uncovered evidence
that Backpage has actually been actively promoting sex trafficking posts to
its site [1]. This would make Backpage unequivocally the publisher of its
content, and therefore criminally liable. So it is entirely possible that this
amendment will not be needed to bring down the human filth that operate on
backpage, but some legal remedy is certainly needed to combat the many
existing and future websites that will enable sex trafficking.

1\. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-
safety/backpage-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-
safety/backpage-has-always-claimed-it-doesnt-control-sex-related-ads-new-
documents-show-
otherwise/2017/07/10/b3158ef6-553c-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.8fe1c667200f)

~~~
UnpossibleJim
If those same said senators wanted to actually make a dent in sex trafficking
in this country, they would take a look at legalization and regulation in a
controlled environment, not unlike Nevada. This is another Band Aid to help
make themselves look/feel better by exerting more control on a populace and
ignoring the ways this bill will be misused, rather than taking a look at
taking real steps to solve a problem. Unfortunately, the American public seems
more than ready to eat a ton of BS sprinkled with a little sugar and false
hope. Same way Guantanamo was pit in to make it's way against trial laws,
PRISM was implemented while directly opposing constititional law and invasions
of sovereign countries have taken place by using drones instead of soldiers.
The road to Hell is, was and always will be paved with good intentions and
politicians promises.

~~~
primitivesuave
"Legalize and regulate" doesn't work when you're dealing with criminals that
are enslaving and trafficking underage women. I highly recommend that you
learn more about backpage.com and understand why there is great _emotional_
resolve to fix the problem, even if the solution presented here is misguided.

~~~
weirdstuff
Perhaps the reason trafficking is incentivized is because this is a black
market in the first place. We don't have the same levels of criminality with
alcohol that we experience in the U.S. during prohibition precisely because a
legitimized industry crowded out the ability to do most egregious criminal
activity.

~~~
primitivesuave
This is another conflation between legal prostitution and the _exploitation
and trafficking of underaged girls to customers (technically paedophiles) who
are actively searching for underage sex_. I recommend reading about backpage
and understanding the difference between _criminally exploiting underage
girls_ and the debate around legalized prostitution.

------
the_stc
The real way to fight trafficking is legalization and regulation, including
interviews with sex workers to detect coercion, then followups to help them.

Since fixing the laws is going to take a while, we've taken it upon ourselves.
We're building such a superior solution for both sex providers and clients,
it'll hurt trafficking like iTunes hurt music piracy.

~~~
rxhernandez
Not that I don't support legalization, but I'm skeptical as to how much
legalization would help. Put simply, can we expect new sex workers to come out
of the woodwork to create the supply needed to make sex trafficking
substantially less profitable? Are women and men suddenly and substantially
going to start selling that service if it became legalized?

~~~
illumin8
Take a look at Rhode Island for an example of how this works in reality. The
results were overwhelmingly positive: [http://www.businessinsider.com/how-
rhode-island-accidentally...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-rhode-island-
accidentally-legalized-prostitution-2014-7)

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Without having read the bill, I suspect the titular “sex trafficking” is just
a code word for sex work in general, as is often the case with such
initiatives. It's very easy to crack down on sex worker rights by claiming all
of them are trafficked. Which helps nobody: driving sex work further
underground only makes the women working in it more vulnerable.

------
CurtMonash
Oh crap -- not again!

Holding the line against censorship is very, very nerve-wracking.

~~~
Bartweiss
I've got a certain painful sympathy for Lovecraft characters these days.
There's nothing quite like the feeling of having to win every battle ad
infinitum, against an opponent whose every gain will be permanent.

~~~
QAPereo
Fortunately there are no immortals here.

~~~
tejtm
non corporal entities (.inc) are

~~~
QAPereo
long-lived != immortal! I still take the essence of your point though.

------
kazinator
> _The two choices facing platforms would seem to be to put extremely
> restrictive measures in place compromising their users’ free speech and
> privacy, or to do nothing at all._

So where is the problem again? "Do nothing at all" sounds good to me. Be the
dumb pipe or host you're supposed to be.

~~~
snsr
> _So where is the problem again?_

Third-party liability for content hosts is a problem for all online platforms.
Platforms are not dumb pipes in the way that an ISP should be.

------
notgood
Do the same Republicans did with ACA, give it another name (Obamacare) to
lessen it in the eyes of the people, I suggest "Internet Censorship Act" or
"Destroy Internet Act"

~~~
mjevans
Kryptonite Internet Legislation Lowlifes

It's another KILL bill.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Unfortunately, in the desire to show that they do not support Nazis, the tech
companies have already ceded the high moral ground on free speech. They have
also given up the argument that they are just a neutral platform or dumb pipe.
One thing that can get broad agreement from both sides of the political aisle
is that actual human sex traffickers( especially if they traffic children) are
more evil than neo-Nazis who go around marching and chanting hateful slogans.
I see a good chance of this bill passing. After all, who wants to go on record
as enabling human sex traffickers.

~~~
woofyman
>more evil than neo-Nazis who go around marching and chanting hateful slogans

They also are known for killing and brutalizing people.

~~~
rayiner
I don’t think you can use a website to kill people, but I’m not up with the
latest W3C proposals.

~~~
mikeash
You can't use a web site to traffic people either.

~~~
amagaeru
You don't have to shove a human into the internet tube to use the internet
tube to help move the human.

Or do we want to ignore all of the sites facilitating prostitution, human
trafficking's BFF?

~~~
mikeash
Likewise you don't need to invent a knife-over-IP protocol to use the internet
to help kill people.

~~~
amagaeru
You can order bullets on the internet.

Does this fall under the banner of 'use the internet to help kill people'?
Your facetious post and response seem to imply that you had something more
specific in mind, or perhaps something by a specific group.

~~~
mikeash
My point is just that "you can't directly do it over the internet" applies
equally to both examples, so you need something else if you want to
distinguish them.

~~~
amagaeru
Sites that facilitate sex trade / crime are direct actions in the trafficking
chain. It happens on the internet. No, the john doesn't come through the
tubes, but his order does. Directly over the internet.

What was your example again? You keep referring to it, but I can't find it in
the comments, which makes i thard to see how your point applies equally.

~~~
mikeash
The other example was Nazis getting together and beating/murdering people.

------
pmontra
Probably good for the incumbent social networks. They have the resources to
patrol their territory and no small startups will raise to threaten their
status. The extra work is a premium they pay to be safe.

Probably bad for everybody else living on comments. Disqus, but also for the
mid sized blog platforms that want people to post comments and talk each
other, example: Medium. And how about Slack?

If that part of the internet shrinks, all the products and services ecosystem
will shrink too.

------
jordigh
I wish I hadn't gotten so conditioned to think that free speech is nazi
speech. Every time I hear someone defending free speech on the internet, they
always seem to be defending the most vile opinions or someone's right to be
unsympathetic or uncaring. The EFF doesn't seem to be doing that here, though,
yet reading the headline puts me on guard.

Why isn't anyone ever defending free speech for good, positive things? I like
free speech, but the positive associations I have with it, like allowing
individuals to criticise politicians or the government, never seem to be what
people on the internet are trying to defend. Free speech should be used by the
disenfranchised to defend against those in power, but people want to defend it
being used to attack the powerless too.

~~~
ams6110
If you claim to support free speech, you have to support the right of others
to speak things you disagree with. We have ceeded some limits (e.g. you
generally cannot directly incite people to harm others) but every additional
limit you allow on speech you oppose can eventually be used against speech you
support.

~~~
jordigh
This is the same slope argument I'm skeptical about.

Nazi speech isn't something I merely disagree with. It's not a simple
difference of opinion. It's not a perfectly valid alternative viewpoint we
should respect. It's an ideology that caused a world war that we should never
repeat. It's not something that should ever be protected.

~~~
tatersolid
Communism caused countless wars, and more deaths than WWII. Should communism
be an exception to your free speech laws?

------
narrator
I think the intent of the lawmakers here is to make a law to put people in
jail or out of business who are running human trafficking websites that
advertise services from victims. How exactly do they do it without trashing
the whole internet?

------
austincheney
Free speech doesn't exist online. I learned this when Brendan Eich was fired
from Mozilla (even though his speech was private, non-vocal, and offline).

The conclusion for me is to never use social media. Online everything is
business. The most political I get is heated opinions about programming and
developer incompetence. For everything else you will have to meet me in person
and buy me dinner.

------
limeblack
I'm not a lawyer but what does this mean for apps like Signal?

~~~
uxp
I'm not a lawyer either, but it would seem Signal would have less culpability
operating a network of users knowing that they do not have any access to the
contents of the messages and thus have an implicit impetus to do nothing. Then
again, they could be held in contempt of court (maybe?) because sticking your
fingers in your ears and shouting La La La isn't really a good defense for
ignorance of a fact, if they were to be given evidence that illegal
pornography was being transmitted through their servers.

Basically, it seems like it probably would have less effect on them than say
Tumblr, which does in fact host a lot of pornographic material in the clear,
but they could still be thrown into the mix depending on circumstances.

