Here comes the law
Recently, JtC had posted "Federal Judge Says Embedding a Tweet Can Be Copyright Infringement." That was a very interesting post, and I had commented on that, but, to me, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was blowing the situation out-of-proportion. And just the other day, a commenter on reddit said something like, "Sometimes the EFF makes mountains out of molehills, but they are right in "How Congress Censored the Internet". Here I agree with the reddit commentator, and with the EFF article. This is bad, very bad.
To back up a little bit, some of you may have noticed that Craigslist shut down all of its personal pages. If you click on any of them there is this message:
US Congress just passed HR 1865, "FOSTA", seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.
Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.
To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!
Reddit also shuttered several personal style sub-Reddits this week. There are also articles galore out there about this.
Pro:
Top 5 Facts to Know: Current Sex Trafficking Legislation H.R. 1865 and S.B. 1693
Con:
It's a Real Bad Sign That Craigslist Shut Down Their Personals Section
The house and the Senate have both passed versions of this bill. Now they will just align the two versions and then Trump will sign it.
This is a big deal. This could be more of a problem than copyright infringement. This is threatening criminal prosecution for website owners for user actions that the website owners have no knowledge of occurring. Think about that, somebody can be locked up for something somebody else did, or thought about doing, even if the two people have never met or communicated in any way. The whole problem is the wording:
"The Senate bill would amend Section 1591 by further defining “participation in a venture” to include any activity that “assists, supports, or facilitates” sex trafficking."
... There are two problems with this amendment to Section 1591(a)(2). (The House bill has similar amendments.)
First, the words “assists, supports, or facilitates” are extremely vague and broad. Courts have interpreted “facilitate” in the criminal context simply to mean “to make easier or less difficult,” as in using a phone to help “facilitate” a drug deal. A huge swath of innocuous intermediary products and services would fall within these newly prohibited activities, given that online platforms by their very nature make communicating and publishing “easier or less difficult.”
Second, persons or entities would be criminally liable under the bill’s vague and broad terms even if they do not actually know that sex trafficking is happening—much less intend to assist in sex trafficking. This would expose innocent individuals and companies to federal criminal liability should their products or services be misused by sex traffickers.
Stop SESTA: Amendments to Federal Criminal Sex Trafficking Law Sweep Too Broadly
I'm not even worried about the actual bill, or the prostitution, or the sex trafficking, or whatever, I'm worried about the precedent. Now the US is gonna pass laws that make individuals criminally liable if somebody else does something criminal? No, no, this violates concepts of law that are so foundational that I can't even dredge them from my memory right now. To me this starts a whole new area of law, creates new crimes. That they are using sex and child trafficking as cover is the give away to me. Pass an unnecessary law that most won't protest because it's sex and child trafficking related and actually only impacts social website owners, but then you can pass similar laws that people will protest, but then the congress-critters can point to this law as precedent ...
Maybe I arranged for another user here to buy one of my underage sex slaves. That would be bad. But JtC would also be criminally liable, even if he knew nothing about the communications or the transaction? How is that even logical? Then next would be drugs, obviously, where if I sold drugs to another user JtC would be criminally liable, even if he knew nothing about it. Then somebody would say, how is that even logical? And the government could say, "Oh, it's just like the sex-trafficking law ..."
As the EFF said in one of their articles, this law wasn't really even needed, since the crimes were all covered under other laws. To me, that is the main purpose, to create the new law, the precedent, that individuals will be arrested for something somebody else has done without the first individual even knowing about the second individual's actions.
This is bad mojo. Maybe it is nothing, but I think it is bad. Real bad.
Comments
Thanks for this Greywolf...
don't know if I'll be able to sleep tonight now.
As far as my liability the weak link would be the private messaging system.
Rest easy, I'm all sold out of underage sex slaves ;)
But seriously, I think this law is a trojan horse for them to then pass similar laws.
And yes, the PM is a weak link for actual sex trafficking, but if they do pass similar laws (regarding other crimes,) then things that occur at meet-ups could be of concern, etc, etc.
I can't believe Zuck let them pass this, there's no prostitution or sex trafficking being facilitated by Facebook, worldwide? Or maybe this was the government's way of throwing Zuck to the wolves ...
So it's your contention...
that an infraction wouldn't necessarily need to be conducted on a site's software, that if an illegal transaction is made by folks that just made acquaintance on a website and then made said transaction outside of the site software itself (without any discussion of said transaction on the site itself), then the site owner could still be held liable just because they met on his/her website?
I realize that at this point it is conjecture, but if that's the case then yeah, this is very bad.
Basically, yes, all of the above.
This law might be struck down as overlybroad, the courts have been known to do that on occasion. - Because that's really the problem with the law, it's overlybroad, (but that's because it includes vague terms that the courts have interpreted to mean broad things, so striking down the law would also limit the court's powers, so that's kinda unlikely too, but "overlybroad" is a recognized reason to strike down laws.)
Congress wrote a law that was not really needed.
The law is so broad it encompasses almost anything.
It looks like a 'fishing expedition', as they would say on TV.
As the EFF article title says, it looks like an attempt to control the Internet.
The law is retroactive, meaning if people met on a website years ago but sold slaves just yesterday, ...
The FBI can pick and choose whoever they want to arrest, from a computer repairman to an FB employee.
If this law ever stands up in court, Congress will delete the words sex [trafiking] and insert drug [trafiking] or money laundering or political interference or whatever ... and create another law where the FBI can again just pick and choose whoever they want to arrest, from a computer repairman to FB employees.
People will be getting arrested left and right for crimes they had no idea about, it will create a chilling effect and people will stop using the Internet except for work orders. (It isn't even law yet, and Craigslist and reddit are already reacting!)
This is a Pandora's Box. This is the law that could begin creating a true fascist state by silencing dissent and free expression. Newspapers, writing letters, and reading books, could be the way of the future.
The law is overlybroad and unconstitutional, so we can hope that it gets struck down. But this is bad, and I cannot stress that enough. This is the law EFF was created to protest against.
But, as you said, at this point this is all conjecture, but the law is clearly written to be very open-ended, and people don't invent a gun, or a hammer, so they can plant daisies -- they want to shoot or smash something. And it's not the sex trade because they already had all the laws they needed there, they want to smash the Internet, Facebook, Bitcoin, whatever ... the tools of commerce and communication not already under government control.
@GreyWolf I think it's leverage.
I think it's leverage. As long as the government has access to all these sites data and they otherwise police themselves then everything will be fine, and maybe ol' Uncle Gov could help with some "improvements"....maybe something like China. Zucks got some experience there I think.
@JtC - the private messaging system -
this is not to say that I understand what GreyWolf said, but I think that any private messaging system on a blog is bad. It enhances "behind the curtain" talk, enhances all the non-transparent activities that most would oppose, if they would happen among political representatives and their supporters, donors etc.
Why have it?
If people want to say something to me they can post a public comment. That's all.
It's all going down into a stinky muddy hole anyhow. Why bother.
This part was my first take also
Where I could see this bill morphing was into the area of thought crimes. When I worked in local government, we used to have a saying about the phenomenon of bad ideas. It is really difficult to get a good idea enacted, and almost impossible to kill a really bad idea. This bill is a really bad idea that has the potential to grow into or spawn even more really bad bills. It already is having the effect of censorship.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thought crimes and guilt by association,
is where we're heading.
Now that humankind has pushed the balance of nature to the brink of survivability, even as we continue to procreate like rabbits, consuming anything and everything that can be converted into a profit, those who govern now will have no choice but to apply the hammer of authoritarian rule to all problems. Not because it will help in any way (it won't) but simply to keep those at the top rich and well fed for as long as possible.
We are the rapacious monsters of si-fi alien invader horror movies, who see themselves as the entitled crown of all creation. Fools we are.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Funny story re: Craigslist and criminal liability
Before CL had been almost completely overtaken by commercial enterprises posing as individuals and overzealous goons mucking up the works with multiple postings, it was a wonderful egalitarian forum for people to barter, buy or sell things, offer their services and connect - without fees attached and with the least hassle (such a welcomed relief to places like Ebay and other capitalistic ventures). I had myself gotten lots of work from it, and for a working musician who needed to supplement my meager earnings it was a godsend.
I haven't used it in years now. But I still get work from an entertainment company for whom I did a job once and has been hiring me ever since. Man, now that I'm thinking it, there were so many interesting stories, characters and places I came into contact with, by riding in my van with their stuff. I wish I took more notes; there were many cool experiences.
Anyway, there was an occasion when I got a call responding to my musician with a van ad that turned into a nightmare.
This guy had called before. I'd pick him up at a work location and then as agreed I'd transport whatever materials he had to another location. Each time he had told me the materials were overstock from a job (one time it was copper piping) and he was taking it to be melted down, getting paid by the weight of it. He was friendly and charismatic to some extent, which made the jobs more than tolerable. I didn't think much more about it. It seemed to be above board.
Almost at the agreed location I began getting texts that I shouldn't come. I was already practically there and in my soon-to-be-proven naivety I showed up thinking he'd explain. When I got there I breezily got out of the van to stretch my legs and take a look at yet another place I hadn't been in my extensive travels throughout every nook and cranny of the five boroughs of NYC. He texted again for me to leave. So, beginning to sense something might be wrong, I jumped in my van to put the key in the ignition. A group of guys holding various blunt objects immediately surrounded me. I was taken aback but caught on quick. They began accusing me of being part of some ring ripping off their company. Hold on guys, I said, I'm only here responding to a CL ad; I have no idea what you're talking about.
They brought me into their offices and said the cops had been called and were on their way. I explained that I knew nothing of what they were accusing me as being part of, and supplied them with all the info I could on the alleged criminal. Sitting there I felt partially shamed that this guy, who seemed like a decent dude, had been ripping places off and using me to do his dirty work. But I also felt completely innocent of my involvement; I literally had no idea of what was going on. He was probably stealing thousands of dollars of work site supplies.
When the cops came I explained my story again. Satisfactorily convinced of my story, he looked at me and then at the proprietor and said, "this guy had nothing to do with it. He was just answering an ad and is not responsible for the thefts." I was let go without any further questioning or follow-up. I never heard a word about it again.
Don't know how much this is fitting in terms of third part criminality charges, but it made me recall that incident, which in some way involved an unwitting third party.
Seems to me if anything like this ever went so far as to go to court, in the case of a website being ensnared in one of these insane broad sweeps, it would be thrown out immediately.
Thanks for the piece on this, GreyWolf. The implications are insane. Another reminder of how the law is a lie. As we're reminded in this case, they're really written not for the benefit of all, but at the behest of oligarchs and corporations to solidify their power and for the government to control the population from breaking free of the malignant status of which they protect in the interests of the aforementioned.
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
great story, thanks for sharing
if the case goes to a court and gets thrown out the government will appeal all the way to the SC
in Detroit
copper means stolen ....
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
may i off-load these links for your perusal
and possible write-up, grey wolf? i find it all appalling, but the usual suspects like the law for various (if not quite truthful) reasons, esp. microsoft. i just have too many things to write chores to do, etc., but do let me know if you'll write it up. sorry i haven't the time to make the inks hot as well.
“President Trump on Friday prevented another government shutdown by signing a $1.3 trillion federal spending bill. Nestled within the 2,200-page document was a controversial act, revolutionizing the way the government handles data.
The CLOUD act was passed without much fanfare. The controversial legislation has been described by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as both sinister and dangerous. It deals with the manner in which the US government can access data, needed for law enforcement operations on United States citizens, that is stored on overseas servers.
The legislation was tacked onto the mammoth spending bill on Wednesday night. It also changes the way foreign governments can request information on their citizens from US tech firms.
Previously the law required the government to have mutual legal-assistance treaties with their foreign counterparts. These governments would then contact tech giants with law enforcement requests directly without using the department of justice as an intermediary.” via RT
(Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-expansion-poli...
apologists for it in the end): https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/cloud-act-becomes-law-increase...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-expansion-poli...
https://medium.com/@SenOrrinHatch/the-cloud-act-its-time-for-our-laws-to...
(from orrin hatch) “These are among the reasons why I joined Senators Coons, Graham, and Whitehouse, and Representatives Collins, Jeffries, and others in introducing the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act. Our legislation will help the United States and other countries resolve the problem of cross-border law enforcement data requests in the age of email and cloud computing.”
It's worse than bad. It takes justice out of law
in order to target the innocent, thereby showing the lawmakers and the system they've made dysfunctional to be both insane and illegitimate.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
my apologies for my inelegant presumption, greywolf.
i'd just thought your: EFF was correct, etc.
i'm short on time, i surprised myself that I wrote this post