21–30 of 82 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be a possible minor win for privacy - if collecting certain information might mean that you know that your service somehow assists illegal activity, then one defense against it is not collecting that information.
As noted below, this bill would be an absolute (much deserved?) disaster for websites that police content. Such websites can't hope to avoid the "knowing" prong.
Legally speaking, if the cops show up and tell you that a user is using your site for X, or Y, or Z, then from that point on... you know that your site can be used for X, or Y, or Z. How that knowledge impacts your liability in the event there are others using your service for similar ends, is not at all clear to me given the wording of the Act in question.
It's kind of a "Notice, Knowledge, and Privilege" thing. And that gets really tricky in federal court.
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.
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…
I seriously cannot imagine how this would not put Facebook, Google, Reddit, and every other online communications platform out of business overnight.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 enforceme…