- 37,754
- 51,990
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
FDT
A New Bill Threatens Speech on NikeTalk and other Internet Platforms - SESTA is the new SOPA.
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by Methodical Management,
- Start date
Narcissist
formerly drusum
- 3,369
- 1,105
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
Honestly if they were ever to succeed in censoring the internet, that's exactly what would happen. Deep Web would blow up with new users
Sir San Diego
formerly brolic scholar
- 12,456
- 10,878
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
Done. Thanks for taking a close look at this for those of us too lazy to do so.
- 9,009
- 13,684
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2014
Lol @ these dudes getting paid to be a detriment to the ppl they serve
storm2006
Supporter
- 29,035
- 64,028
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
Kind of like Meth mentioned - places like Twitter and Facebook could probably come up with AI to reasonably detect post content. But what if a group of folks just got 10s thousands of damning posts and TWTR and FB would be liable. Damn.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
make no mistake about it, Facebook & google are funding and lobbying to kill this bill on site cuz they Know social media as we know it would be crippled.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Google and Sex Traffickers Like Backpage.com
Inspectors looking in 2014 for evidence of human trafficking at a sweat shop in San Francisco.
JIM WILSON / THE NEW YORK TIMES
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
Nicholas Kristof
Sex traffickers in America have the police and prosecutors pursuing them, but they do have one crucial (if secret) ally: Google.
Google’s motto has long been “Don’t be evil,” and I admire lots about the company. But organizations it funds have for years been quietly helping Backpage.com, the odious website where most American victims of human trafficking are sold, to battle lawsuitsfrom children sold there for sex.
Now Google is using its enormous lobbying power in Washington to try to kill bipartisan legislation that would crack down on websites that promote sex trafficking.
“I wanted to bring to your attention an issue that is picking up steam in the Senate and the House,” a Google lobbyist, E. Stewart Jeffries, wrote in a letter to congressional offices last month. He urged House members not to co-sponsor the legislation targeting sex trafficking.
It’s not that Google is taking ads from Backpage (it doesn’t) or giving it money. But as Backpage fights off prosecutors and worries about the legislation, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, Google has emerged as its behind-the-scenes champion.
Why? Why would Google ally itself with Backpage, which is involved in 73 percent of cases of suspected child sex trafficking in the U.S., which advertised a 13-year-old whose pimp had tattooed his name on her eyelids?
The answer has to do with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies like Google (and The New York Times) from lawsuits — and also protects Backpage. Google seems to have a vague, poorly grounded fear that closing the loophole would open the way to frivolous lawsuits and investigations and lead to a slippery slope that will damage its interests and the freedom of the internet.
That impresses few people outside the tech community, for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act was crafted exceedingly narrowly to target only those intentionally engaged in trafficking children. Some tech companies, including Oracle, have endorsed the bill.
“This bill only impacts bad-actor websites,” notes Yiota Souras, general counsel at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. “You don’t inadvertently traffic a child.”
Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican and lead sponsor of the legislation, says that it would clearly never affect Google. “We’ve tried to work with them,” Portman told me.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the lead Democratic sponsor, adds that “it’s truly baffling and perplexing” that some in the tech world (Google above all) have dug in their heels. He says the sex trafficking bill gathered 28 co-sponsors within a week, making it a rare piece of bipartisan legislation that seems likely to become law.
I write about this issue because I’m haunted by the kids I’ve met who were pretty much enslaved, right here in the U.S. in the 21st century. I’ve been writing about Backpage for more than five years, ever since I came across a terrified 13-year-old girl, Baby Face, who had been forced to work for a pimp in New York City.
Baby Face said that when she balked, the pimp threw her down a stairway. Finally, one day she was hurting badly and could not bear to be raped any more. So when her pimp sold her on Backpage in Brooklyn and waited outside the building, Baby Face pounded on the door of another apartment, begged to use the phone and called her mom. The police rescued her and the pimp went to prison.
But it’s not enough to send a few pimps to prison; we should also go after online marketplaces like Backpage. That’s why Google’s myopia is so sad.
The Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act won’t end trafficking any more than laws end bank robbery, but 50 attorneys general around the country have signed a letter saying that this kind of legislation would help — an astonishing unanimity.
In response to my inquiries, Google issued a statement: “Backpage acted criminally to facilitate child sex trafficking, and we strongly urge the Department of Justice to prosecute them for their egregious crimes against children. … Google will continue to work alongside Congress, antitrafficking organizations and other technology companies to combat sex trafficking.”
Fine, but then why oppose legislation? Why use intermediaries to defend Backpage? To me, all this reflects the tech world’s moral blindness about what’s happening outside its bubble.
Even if Google were right that ending the immunity for Backpage might lead to an occasional frivolous lawsuit, life requires some balancing.
( sick: police state language)
For example, websites must try to remove copyrighted material if it’s posted on their sites. That’s a constraint on internet freedom that makes sense, and it hasn’t proved a slippery slope. If we’re willing to protect copyrights, shouldn’t we do as much to protect children sold for sex?
I asked Nacole, a mom in Washington State whose daughter was trafficked on Backpage at the age of 15, what she would say to Google.
“Our children can’t be the cost of doing business,” she said. Google understands so much about business, but apparently not that.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/...app://com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox
Google and Sex Traffickers Like Backpage.com
Inspectors looking in 2014 for evidence of human trafficking at a sweat shop in San Francisco.
JIM WILSON / THE NEW YORK TIMES
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
Nicholas Kristof
Sex traffickers in America have the police and prosecutors pursuing them, but they do have one crucial (if secret) ally: Google.
Google’s motto has long been “Don’t be evil,” and I admire lots about the company. But organizations it funds have for years been quietly helping Backpage.com, the odious website where most American victims of human trafficking are sold, to battle lawsuitsfrom children sold there for sex.
Now Google is using its enormous lobbying power in Washington to try to kill bipartisan legislation that would crack down on websites that promote sex trafficking.
“I wanted to bring to your attention an issue that is picking up steam in the Senate and the House,” a Google lobbyist, E. Stewart Jeffries, wrote in a letter to congressional offices last month. He urged House members not to co-sponsor the legislation targeting sex trafficking.
It’s not that Google is taking ads from Backpage (it doesn’t) or giving it money. But as Backpage fights off prosecutors and worries about the legislation, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, Google has emerged as its behind-the-scenes champion.
Why? Why would Google ally itself with Backpage, which is involved in 73 percent of cases of suspected child sex trafficking in the U.S., which advertised a 13-year-old whose pimp had tattooed his name on her eyelids?
The answer has to do with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies like Google (and The New York Times) from lawsuits — and also protects Backpage. Google seems to have a vague, poorly grounded fear that closing the loophole would open the way to frivolous lawsuits and investigations and lead to a slippery slope that will damage its interests and the freedom of the internet.
That impresses few people outside the tech community, for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act was crafted exceedingly narrowly to target only those intentionally engaged in trafficking children. Some tech companies, including Oracle, have endorsed the bill.
“This bill only impacts bad-actor websites,” notes Yiota Souras, general counsel at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. “You don’t inadvertently traffic a child.”
Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican and lead sponsor of the legislation, says that it would clearly never affect Google. “We’ve tried to work with them,” Portman told me.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the lead Democratic sponsor, adds that “it’s truly baffling and perplexing” that some in the tech world (Google above all) have dug in their heels. He says the sex trafficking bill gathered 28 co-sponsors within a week, making it a rare piece of bipartisan legislation that seems likely to become law.
I write about this issue because I’m haunted by the kids I’ve met who were pretty much enslaved, right here in the U.S. in the 21st century. I’ve been writing about Backpage for more than five years, ever since I came across a terrified 13-year-old girl, Baby Face, who had been forced to work for a pimp in New York City.
Baby Face said that when she balked, the pimp threw her down a stairway. Finally, one day she was hurting badly and could not bear to be raped any more. So when her pimp sold her on Backpage in Brooklyn and waited outside the building, Baby Face pounded on the door of another apartment, begged to use the phone and called her mom. The police rescued her and the pimp went to prison.
But it’s not enough to send a few pimps to prison; we should also go after online marketplaces like Backpage. That’s why Google’s myopia is so sad.
The Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act won’t end trafficking any more than laws end bank robbery, but 50 attorneys general around the country have signed a letter saying that this kind of legislation would help — an astonishing unanimity.
In response to my inquiries, Google issued a statement: “Backpage acted criminally to facilitate child sex trafficking, and we strongly urge the Department of Justice to prosecute them for their egregious crimes against children. … Google will continue to work alongside Congress, antitrafficking organizations and other technology companies to combat sex trafficking.”
Fine, but then why oppose legislation? Why use intermediaries to defend Backpage? To me, all this reflects the tech world’s moral blindness about what’s happening outside its bubble.
Even if Google were right that ending the immunity for Backpage might lead to an occasional frivolous lawsuit, life requires some balancing.
( sick: police state language)
For example, websites must try to remove copyrighted material if it’s posted on their sites. That’s a constraint on internet freedom that makes sense, and it hasn’t proved a slippery slope. If we’re willing to protect copyrights, shouldn’t we do as much to protect children sold for sex?
I asked Nacole, a mom in Washington State whose daughter was trafficked on Backpage at the age of 15, what she would say to Google.
“Our children can’t be the cost of doing business,” she said. Google understands so much about business, but apparently not that.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/...app://com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
Senators pledge to defeat Silicon Valley on sex-trafficking bill
By ASHLEY GOLD
09/19/2017 04:00 PM EDT
Senators on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with an anti-sex trafficking bill opposed by the biggest names in the tech industry, in the latest sign that Silicon Valley has lost some of its luster in Washington.
At issue is a measure introduced by Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that would make it easier for law enforcement to go after websites that host sex-trafficking ads. The bill would do that by changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from litigation over content posted by users, even though tech companies warn that tinkering with the provision could wreak broader collateral damage to the internet economy.
Story Continued Below
The legislation, which counts 30 sponsors in the Senate and 140 in the House, has become the latest flash point in Washington's increasingly tense relationship with Silicon Valley, which once enjoyed bipartisan praise but is lately drawing scrutiny over its unchecked size and power. D.C. policymakers are taking a closer look at everything from Facebook hosting Russia-linked political ads to antitrust concerns over Amazon's expanding business empire.
Blumenthal, speaking at a Commerce Committee hearing, attacked the tech industry's arguments against the anti-sex trafficking bill, S. 1693 (115), saying they do a disservice to victims.
"We need to pass this measure. If we fail to do so — if we fail to close this gap and fill this legal black hole — we become complicit," he said. "So, when the critics of this legislation say that there will be a deluge of lawsuits, that there will be frivolous or unfounded claims, think of it for a moment. Survivors have to come forward and establish their standing under the law by making the case that they have been sold for sex. There will be no deluge of frivolous lawsuits as a result of this measure."
The legislation is part of a long-running congressional fight with Backpage.com, a classifieds site that has been the target of lawmaker scrutiny and investigations over accusations that it facilitated child prostitution and human trafficking. The site shut down its adults-services section in January, saying it had been subjected to "unconstitutional government censorship."
But Google has emerged as one of the biggest opponents of the bill, deploying its substantial lobbying resources to defeat a measure it considers a broader threat to its way of doing business.
The Backpage.com saga provided the emotional backdrop of Tuesday's hearing as a packed room heard what happened to one young woman who was trafficked on the site.
"I’m sure when this act was put into place in '96, the internet was in its infancy, and it was not intended to allow companies to legally sell children on the internet," said Yvonne Ambrose, the mother of Desiree Robinson, who was allegedly shopped on Backpage.com before being murdered last year. "But somehow, a dollar has become more important than a human life. If you’re going to fix this problem, fix it."
Still, the tech industry's defenders said the bill is not the way to address the problem.
"I take a backseat to no one in this Senate in the fight against sex trafficking. I just believe the legislation being considered today is the wrong answer to an important question," said Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), urging Congress not to act like "bludgeoning politicians" in tearing up a foundation of today's internet.
Google and Facebook did not appear at the hearing, relying instead on the general counsel of their trade group, the Internet Association, to play defense. The lawyer, Abigail Slater, said in prepared testimony her association supports a "tailored amendment that ensures civil suits were brought against online actors that acted with knowledge and intent."
"The internet community stands ready to work with this committee and the sponsors of the legislation on targeted approaches that not only bring justice against Backpage.com, but also support the ongoing fight against sex trafficking," Slater said.
WHITE HOUSE
GOP shudders as Trump courts Democrats on taxes
By RACHAEL BADE and BURGESS EVERETT
Lawmakers, however, don't appear eager to narrow the scope of their bill. When Google on Monday floated a similar alternative plan, Portman's office quickly said it would not "gut" a bill that has "broad and diverse Senate support."
Story Continued Below
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a former lawmaker who testified at Tuesday's hearing, said Congress should not only advance the anti-sex trafficking bill but consider expanding the scope of the legislation.
“I believe that this action will make the bill even stronger, and protect against other crimes such as child pornography and other forms of cyber exploitation,” Becerra said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/sex-trafficking-bill-senate-242887
da facade of da sex traffic aspect of da bill is odious.
problem is this bill looks like it might pass cuz its got bipartisan support & da public doesn't know enough about it to defy it.
By ASHLEY GOLD
09/19/2017 04:00 PM EDT
Senators on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with an anti-sex trafficking bill opposed by the biggest names in the tech industry, in the latest sign that Silicon Valley has lost some of its luster in Washington.
At issue is a measure introduced by Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that would make it easier for law enforcement to go after websites that host sex-trafficking ads. The bill would do that by changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from litigation over content posted by users, even though tech companies warn that tinkering with the provision could wreak broader collateral damage to the internet economy.
Story Continued Below
The legislation, which counts 30 sponsors in the Senate and 140 in the House, has become the latest flash point in Washington's increasingly tense relationship with Silicon Valley, which once enjoyed bipartisan praise but is lately drawing scrutiny over its unchecked size and power. D.C. policymakers are taking a closer look at everything from Facebook hosting Russia-linked political ads to antitrust concerns over Amazon's expanding business empire.
Blumenthal, speaking at a Commerce Committee hearing, attacked the tech industry's arguments against the anti-sex trafficking bill, S. 1693 (115), saying they do a disservice to victims.
"We need to pass this measure. If we fail to do so — if we fail to close this gap and fill this legal black hole — we become complicit," he said. "So, when the critics of this legislation say that there will be a deluge of lawsuits, that there will be frivolous or unfounded claims, think of it for a moment. Survivors have to come forward and establish their standing under the law by making the case that they have been sold for sex. There will be no deluge of frivolous lawsuits as a result of this measure."
The legislation is part of a long-running congressional fight with Backpage.com, a classifieds site that has been the target of lawmaker scrutiny and investigations over accusations that it facilitated child prostitution and human trafficking. The site shut down its adults-services section in January, saying it had been subjected to "unconstitutional government censorship."
But Google has emerged as one of the biggest opponents of the bill, deploying its substantial lobbying resources to defeat a measure it considers a broader threat to its way of doing business.
The Backpage.com saga provided the emotional backdrop of Tuesday's hearing as a packed room heard what happened to one young woman who was trafficked on the site.
"I’m sure when this act was put into place in '96, the internet was in its infancy, and it was not intended to allow companies to legally sell children on the internet," said Yvonne Ambrose, the mother of Desiree Robinson, who was allegedly shopped on Backpage.com before being murdered last year. "But somehow, a dollar has become more important than a human life. If you’re going to fix this problem, fix it."
Still, the tech industry's defenders said the bill is not the way to address the problem.
"I take a backseat to no one in this Senate in the fight against sex trafficking. I just believe the legislation being considered today is the wrong answer to an important question," said Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), urging Congress not to act like "bludgeoning politicians" in tearing up a foundation of today's internet.
Google and Facebook did not appear at the hearing, relying instead on the general counsel of their trade group, the Internet Association, to play defense. The lawyer, Abigail Slater, said in prepared testimony her association supports a "tailored amendment that ensures civil suits were brought against online actors that acted with knowledge and intent."
"The internet community stands ready to work with this committee and the sponsors of the legislation on targeted approaches that not only bring justice against Backpage.com, but also support the ongoing fight against sex trafficking," Slater said.
WHITE HOUSE
GOP shudders as Trump courts Democrats on taxes
By RACHAEL BADE and BURGESS EVERETT
Lawmakers, however, don't appear eager to narrow the scope of their bill. When Google on Monday floated a similar alternative plan, Portman's office quickly said it would not "gut" a bill that has "broad and diverse Senate support."
Story Continued Below
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a former lawmaker who testified at Tuesday's hearing, said Congress should not only advance the anti-sex trafficking bill but consider expanding the scope of the legislation.
“I believe that this action will make the bill even stronger, and protect against other crimes such as child pornography and other forms of cyber exploitation,” Becerra said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/sex-trafficking-bill-senate-242887
da facade of da sex traffic aspect of da bill is odious.
problem is this bill looks like it might pass cuz its got bipartisan support & da public doesn't know enough about it to defy it.
Thats My Word
formerly derrty6232
- 9,561
- 3,218
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
Who was the rappers though?
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
Congress is the worst
- 17,282
- 26,708
- Joined
- May 11, 2017
Nah within the next 20-30 years the net won't be the same.
I feel like there's eventually gonna be a regulated internet and a more "mainstream" version of the dark web...the same way the concept of forums were kind of a niche thing that became mainstream with social media timelines/comment sections, I feel like eventually there's gonna be an internet that is a complete crackdown on piracy and controversial speech/rhetoric and then there's gonna be an unregulated internet that is just a free for all smh.
But whether it's terrorism, CP, sex trafficking, or ****ing KONY, they're gonna find a way to finesse it. They've been trying too hard since 9/11. Lowkey they've probably been passing tiny bills no one is paying attention to this whole time that slowly chip the iceberg away.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
I can't really blame em, they're falling for da okie dokie because Backpage has been immune to criminal liability cuz they simply host da ads and ot turns out they did a piss poor job of regulating themselves.
you're not gonna get rid of sex traffic with this bill, but you're DEFINITELY gonna destroy da way user created content is forever hosted.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
im disappointed thus far in silicone Valley's campaign against this bill.
they need to spend more money on awareness.
they need to spend more money on awareness.
D
Deleted member 42060
Guest
They censor most tv, some music on radio for free. You pay premiums for uncensored stuff.
Why are people gonna pay premiums for censored, monitored, regulated stuff?
The public of the world helped to create the net's content, despite that the net was darpa and govt related.
Why are people gonna pay premiums for censored, monitored, regulated stuff?
The public of the world helped to create the net's content, despite that the net was darpa and govt related.
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
Nah I'm pretty sure they know what they been doing. Congress during the Obama admin tried to pull the same stunt on Internet censorship in the name of piracy. Now they have disguised a similar bill as "anti child trafficking" in order to pass their heavy policing of the internet.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
Tech companies oppose online sex-trafficking bill in emotional hearing
By Levi Sumagaysay / September 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM
Sign up for the free Good Morning Silicon Valley newsletter.
The “legitimate tech companies” support changes to the CDA that would hold “bad actors” accountable, Internet Association general counsel Abigail Slater said during her testimony Tuesday in front of the Senate Commerce Committee in Washington. The hearing was live-streamed.
The Internet Association counts the internet’s biggest companies among its members, and they are trying to help stop sex trafficking, too, Slater said. But she said SESTA would “undermine internet companies’ ability to invest in innovations and best practices,” to deal with the problem, calling the bill a “well-intentioned response to a terrible situation.” SESTA is too vague, broad and “opens up liability for frivolous lawsuits,” she said.
Small startups would be most vulnerable to such lawsuits, SESTA opponents say.
“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ensures that online companies are not liable for the content posted by their users,” Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said in a written statement Tuesday. “This law is crucial to the Internet economy, and Congress should avoid weakening it.”
In addition, the tech industry said the bill could threaten free speech.
But the testimony by proponents of SESTA during Tuesday’s hearing was compelling.
“Section 230 is standing in the way of justice for my child and other Jane Does like her,” said Yvonne Ambrose, the mother of Desiree Robinson, a 16-year-old Chicago girl who was found dead in a garage on Christmas Eve last year. A man who used Backpage is accused of beating and raping her, and slitting her throat.
“If we don’t speak up now, these websites will continue to keep profiting off trafficking our babies,” a tearful Ambrose said as she pleaded with the senators to pass the bill to amend Section 230.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, one of the authors of the bipartisan bill, said during the hearing that he met a young woman who was first sold on Backpage.com when she was 9 years old — by her dad, who took her to sporting events “from city to city” to pimp her out. Victims tell Portman sex trafficking “has moved from the street corner, or the street, to the smartphone,” he said.
SESTA is “narrowly tailored and goes only after sex trafficking,” said Xavier Becerra, California’s state attorney general at the hearing. Law enforcement needs the bill because with the CDA, “we’re fighting with two hands tied behind our backs,” he added.
But Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, one of the authors of Section 230 and opponent of SESTA as it’s currently written, weighed in: “Absolutely nothing in the 230 statute protects against violating federal criminal law,” he said. Likewise, tech companies and others that oppose SESTA, say there are laws in place to hold sex traffickers accountable.
A Senate report found that online marketplace Backpage.com facilitated prostitution and child sex trafficking — and was responsible for about three-fourths of such activity in the United States — and the website was forced to officially close its “Adult” section in January. But to this day, a search of its “Dating” section yields plenty of ads containing sexual content.
The senators who listened to both sides’ testimony ended on an optimistic note that tech companies could work with the bill’s authors to make changes that would be acceptable to all stakeholders.
This year, there are 9,700 reports of child sex trafficking so far, Yiota Souras, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said during the hearing Tuesday.
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/09/...nline-sex-trafficking-bill-emotional-hearing/
By Levi Sumagaysay / September 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM
Sign up for the free Good Morning Silicon Valley newsletter.
The “legitimate tech companies” support changes to the CDA that would hold “bad actors” accountable, Internet Association general counsel Abigail Slater said during her testimony Tuesday in front of the Senate Commerce Committee in Washington. The hearing was live-streamed.
The Internet Association counts the internet’s biggest companies among its members, and they are trying to help stop sex trafficking, too, Slater said. But she said SESTA would “undermine internet companies’ ability to invest in innovations and best practices,” to deal with the problem, calling the bill a “well-intentioned response to a terrible situation.” SESTA is too vague, broad and “opens up liability for frivolous lawsuits,” she said.
Small startups would be most vulnerable to such lawsuits, SESTA opponents say.
“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ensures that online companies are not liable for the content posted by their users,” Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said in a written statement Tuesday. “This law is crucial to the Internet economy, and Congress should avoid weakening it.”
In addition, the tech industry said the bill could threaten free speech.
But the testimony by proponents of SESTA during Tuesday’s hearing was compelling.
“Section 230 is standing in the way of justice for my child and other Jane Does like her,” said Yvonne Ambrose, the mother of Desiree Robinson, a 16-year-old Chicago girl who was found dead in a garage on Christmas Eve last year. A man who used Backpage is accused of beating and raping her, and slitting her throat.
“If we don’t speak up now, these websites will continue to keep profiting off trafficking our babies,” a tearful Ambrose said as she pleaded with the senators to pass the bill to amend Section 230.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, one of the authors of the bipartisan bill, said during the hearing that he met a young woman who was first sold on Backpage.com when she was 9 years old — by her dad, who took her to sporting events “from city to city” to pimp her out. Victims tell Portman sex trafficking “has moved from the street corner, or the street, to the smartphone,” he said.
SESTA is “narrowly tailored and goes only after sex trafficking,” said Xavier Becerra, California’s state attorney general at the hearing. Law enforcement needs the bill because with the CDA, “we’re fighting with two hands tied behind our backs,” he added.
But Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, one of the authors of Section 230 and opponent of SESTA as it’s currently written, weighed in: “Absolutely nothing in the 230 statute protects against violating federal criminal law,” he said. Likewise, tech companies and others that oppose SESTA, say there are laws in place to hold sex traffickers accountable.
A Senate report found that online marketplace Backpage.com facilitated prostitution and child sex trafficking — and was responsible for about three-fourths of such activity in the United States — and the website was forced to officially close its “Adult” section in January. But to this day, a search of its “Dating” section yields plenty of ads containing sexual content.
The senators who listened to both sides’ testimony ended on an optimistic note that tech companies could work with the bill’s authors to make changes that would be acceptable to all stakeholders.
This year, there are 9,700 reports of child sex trafficking so far, Yiota Souras, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said during the hearing Tuesday.
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/09/...nline-sex-trafficking-bill-emotional-hearing/
D
Deleted member 42060
Guest
Just an example of how 1 rotten apple makes the bunch rotten. The entire net aint responsible for child trafficking.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
pipa & SOPA was another vessel to limit free speech via making people who host content liable for copyrighted material.
this SESTA bill is da same thing only their using da more compelling wrapping of "child sex trafficking"
google & co. better crank up da PR asap.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
September 18, 2017 - 05:00 PM EDT
Congress's sloppy new internet bill is a step in the wrong direction
GETTY IMAGES
BY DAPHNE KELLER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
TWEET SHARE EMAIL
Most observers cheered when the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer was booted from YouTube, CloudFlare, and other platforms around the Internet. At the same time, the site's disappearance stirred anxiety about Internet companies' power over online speech. It starkly illustrated how online speech can live or die at the discretion of private companies. The modern public square is in private hands.
Episodes like this have fueled calls to "regulate" Internet platforms. A recent op-ed suggested nationalizing companies like Google and Facebook. Others have said that a law currently under consideration in Washington, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), would be a step in the right direction. But SESTA wouldn't reduce the power of Internet companies. It would greatly expand their role as hidden arbiters of online speech.
SESTA has admirable goals - it aims to help victims of sex trafficking. But the means its drafters chose to do so are dangerous. SESTA seriously undermines Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), a core law protecting both Internet users and platforms.
CDA 230 protects platforms by shielding them from liability for most user content. That protection is essential for contemporary Internet services. YouTube, for example, could never do meaningful legal review for the 400 hours of video it receives every minute. And even if YouTube could somehow do it, such efforts would be prohibitively expensive for smaller competitors.
Laws like CDA 230 effectively protect rights of Internet users, too. Platforms routinely receive false claims that online speech is illegal. Competitors make them in order to hurt one another's businesses, organizations like the Church of Scientology use them to silence criticism, and even governments try to dupe platforms into deleting online speech.
Ecuador, for example, used false copyright claims to suppress footage of police abuse. Research shows that platforms all too often follow the path of least resistance in response to such claims. Rather than spend money on lawyers and investigations, or risk legal exposure, they simply remove users' lawful speech. Mounting evidence suggests that over-removal disproportionately affects African Americans and other minority user groups.
As numerous courts have recognized, this situation threatens the constitutional and human rights of Internet users. Human rights officials have said that platforms should take down user speech only after a court has decided it is illegal. Letting platforms decide the fate of online content may also make sense when they can clearly identify illegality on sight, as they do in the case of child sexual abuse images. But where legal judgment is called for, it should be provided by courts and other public, democratically accountable forums.
With SESTA, Congress would move away from such accountability. Although the bill aims to punish a particular set of bad actors - most importantly the classified advertising site Backpage.com, which is said to have colluded with traffickers - it actually does far more. It pushes decisions, under ambiguous legal standards, into the hands of platforms. Tech companies from Facebook to small infrastructure providers could be required to decide what counts as "facilitating" or "assisting" trafficking, and risk jail time or civil liability if they get the answer wrong. That is a recipe for abuse by those seeking to suppress online speech.
Imagine, for example, the creators of a new messaging app. If one user claims that another is running a trafficking operation using the app, should they believe the allegation, delete the user's messages, and terminate the account? I've been a tech lawyer almost two decades, and spent hours trying to parse SESTA, but I don't know the answer. Real-world entrepreneurs mostly won't check with lawyers anyway. They'll do the easy and safe thing: bar users or content from the platform.
Internet users deserve better legal protection than this. And Congress already drafted a law that provided it. The 2015 SAVE Act subjected Backpage.com and other purveyors of trafficking ads to federal prosecution - and it did so without SESTA's collateral damage to Internet users. That makes it puzzling why there is any need for SESTA now.
No one questions the importance of helping trafficking victims. But doing it this way is a mistake. Congress has many other options including, pressing federal prosecutors to bring cases under the existing SAVE Act. If that fails, there are other ways to target traffickers without making tech companies the new speech judges. But SESTA's clumsy approach should not be under consideration
http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal...ffickers-act-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
Congress's sloppy new internet bill is a step in the wrong direction
GETTY IMAGES
BY DAPHNE KELLER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
TWEET SHARE EMAIL
Most observers cheered when the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer was booted from YouTube, CloudFlare, and other platforms around the Internet. At the same time, the site's disappearance stirred anxiety about Internet companies' power over online speech. It starkly illustrated how online speech can live or die at the discretion of private companies. The modern public square is in private hands.
Episodes like this have fueled calls to "regulate" Internet platforms. A recent op-ed suggested nationalizing companies like Google and Facebook. Others have said that a law currently under consideration in Washington, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), would be a step in the right direction. But SESTA wouldn't reduce the power of Internet companies. It would greatly expand their role as hidden arbiters of online speech.
SESTA has admirable goals - it aims to help victims of sex trafficking. But the means its drafters chose to do so are dangerous. SESTA seriously undermines Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), a core law protecting both Internet users and platforms.
CDA 230 protects platforms by shielding them from liability for most user content. That protection is essential for contemporary Internet services. YouTube, for example, could never do meaningful legal review for the 400 hours of video it receives every minute. And even if YouTube could somehow do it, such efforts would be prohibitively expensive for smaller competitors.
Laws like CDA 230 effectively protect rights of Internet users, too. Platforms routinely receive false claims that online speech is illegal. Competitors make them in order to hurt one another's businesses, organizations like the Church of Scientology use them to silence criticism, and even governments try to dupe platforms into deleting online speech.
Ecuador, for example, used false copyright claims to suppress footage of police abuse. Research shows that platforms all too often follow the path of least resistance in response to such claims. Rather than spend money on lawyers and investigations, or risk legal exposure, they simply remove users' lawful speech. Mounting evidence suggests that over-removal disproportionately affects African Americans and other minority user groups.
As numerous courts have recognized, this situation threatens the constitutional and human rights of Internet users. Human rights officials have said that platforms should take down user speech only after a court has decided it is illegal. Letting platforms decide the fate of online content may also make sense when they can clearly identify illegality on sight, as they do in the case of child sexual abuse images. But where legal judgment is called for, it should be provided by courts and other public, democratically accountable forums.
With SESTA, Congress would move away from such accountability. Although the bill aims to punish a particular set of bad actors - most importantly the classified advertising site Backpage.com, which is said to have colluded with traffickers - it actually does far more. It pushes decisions, under ambiguous legal standards, into the hands of platforms. Tech companies from Facebook to small infrastructure providers could be required to decide what counts as "facilitating" or "assisting" trafficking, and risk jail time or civil liability if they get the answer wrong. That is a recipe for abuse by those seeking to suppress online speech.
Imagine, for example, the creators of a new messaging app. If one user claims that another is running a trafficking operation using the app, should they believe the allegation, delete the user's messages, and terminate the account? I've been a tech lawyer almost two decades, and spent hours trying to parse SESTA, but I don't know the answer. Real-world entrepreneurs mostly won't check with lawyers anyway. They'll do the easy and safe thing: bar users or content from the platform.
Internet users deserve better legal protection than this. And Congress already drafted a law that provided it. The 2015 SAVE Act subjected Backpage.com and other purveyors of trafficking ads to federal prosecution - and it did so without SESTA's collateral damage to Internet users. That makes it puzzling why there is any need for SESTA now.
No one questions the importance of helping trafficking victims. But doing it this way is a mistake. Congress has many other options including, pressing federal prosecutors to bring cases under the existing SAVE Act. If that fails, there are other ways to target traffickers without making tech companies the new speech judges. But SESTA's clumsy approach should not be under consideration
http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal...ffickers-act-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
- 17,282
- 26,708
- Joined
- May 11, 2017
y'all saying this like stopping sex trafficking is the goal of an internet bill designed to hold websites responsible for content their users posts
they dont give a **** about that **** or at least this bill isn't being proposed out of concern for it
D
Deleted member 42060
Guest
They are masking it, disguising it in another form, but when you 1st hear or read or see it it just sounds whack. Trafficking sucks. It can be dealt with other ways. Internet is like the only thing thats truly free, despite the laws still in effect
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
D
Deleted member 42060
Guest
If the net becomes legit censored
Big brother going for the checkmate
Phones, tvs, radio, Mail, newspapers....
Big brother going for the checkmate
Phones, tvs, radio, Mail, newspapers....
- 7,325
- 28,714
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
I wouldn't give Twitter or Facebook more credit than they deserve in terms of quality control. They've long stated their intentions of combating the toxicity that has become ubiquitous on their platforms, and we all know how that's gone.
Facebook's screening procedures seem particularly one-sided.
According to ProPublica reports, Facebook's internal documents reveal that it considers "White men" a protected category from hate speech, but not "Black children": https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms
It's not that they necessarily lack the means to identify certain forms of hate speech, however. You can buy ads from Facebook specifically targeting anti-Semites: https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters
It's pretty clear, from this, what their priorities are. They're an advertising company.
They're protected less by their moderation technology and innovation than by their wealth, connections, and clout. Simply stated, Facebook et al. will have all the resources they need to settle any cases that do crop up in the way that some big companies calculate in wrongful death suits as another cost of doing business. The tech giants will be fine.
The issue, to me, is that the bill is not tailored precisely enough to target only "bad actors," and instead seems a classic example of shooting the messenger. If you're not a service provider, perhaps you'd think the existence of offending content on a service to be the product of negligence, contempt, or apathy. That's not so. A great deal of spam these days is automated, adaptive, and unyielding. It's virtually impossible to read every single post that goes up on a site permitting user generated content - and that's to say nothing of private messaging services.
What happens if someone abuses the PM service on our site to facilitate a criminal act? What happens if someone abuses an email service or a text message? Do we hold Whatsapp to this standard? Do we hold ISPs to this standard? Where is the line drawn?
You don't want to change the incentive structure so that ISPs, email providers, and other service providers need to literally read your mail to protect themselves against liability for those who abuse their services.
With all due respect to Nicholas Kristof (Half the Sky is required reading and he's shed a great deal of light on otherwise under-reported issues of vital importance), he wouldn't be able to write for the NY Times if not for the actual malice standard established in NY Times v. Sullivan. I see no reason why a law targeting the likes of Backpage can't be more precisely tailored, to protect those who make a reasonable effort and are not knowingly or deliberately facilitating sex trafficking.
That the law "only" relates to sex trafficking is beside the point. If we have to pro-actively screen for only one type of violation, we still have to pro-actively screen everything.
He argues that we make the sacrifice for copyright, so why not sex trafficking? That example actually proves SESTA critics' point: we didn't need SOPA to protect copyrights when we had the DMCA. The DMCA gives publishers the opportunity - and the responsibility - to react to copyright violations once reported. This permits reactive, rather than proactive, moderation, which is what allows real time posting. Personally, I'd be all in favor of something that adapts a similar standard for sex trafficking and other offenses.
All reasonable people want to target the bad actors here - so it's a false dichotomy to paint this issue as "selfish, entitled tech bros and sex traffickers vs. concerned citizens."
The righteousness of that cause makes this all the more baffling. A precisely tailored law doesn't need to use these PATRIOT Act "you will accept this surveillance or else you have something to hide and you hate freedom" steamrolling tactics. It would have universal support.
Every reasonable person wants to stop sex trafficking. We can do so without threatening the legitimate platforms we use to communicate online, so let's drop this pretense that we need to choose one or the other. Online service providers bear some responsibility and should behave ethically, but forcing those providers to adopt perfect, proactive screening systems will do a lot more harm to the general public than it will to sex traffickers.
There's a bit of a generation/technology gap embedded in SESTA advocates' arguments.
If a terrorist sends a letter bomb via UPS, UPS has, traditionally, not been held liable. Unless they know the package contains a bomb, they're considered innocent agents. If you change that standard, then all our mail is opened and screened.
The same is true for telephone companies. How many crimes have, over the course of history, been organized through phone calls? Yet we have not, to this point, held telecommunications companies liable for the abuses of their customers. Changing that standard requires censorship and surveillance on the part of the communications provider.
We did not take that step for traditional communications providers and we should not take that step for the Internet.
We all share a moral imperative to stop sex trafficking. We should all work together to find a smarter, more effective way of doing so than by championing this rushed, ham-handed legislation.
Similar threads
