5 ms·

Stop SESTA: Amendments to Federal Criminal Sex Trafficking Law Sweep Too Broadly

81 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

will_brown 9y ago
TL;DR: EFF is against criminal liability of internet platforms for the actions of their users...specifically in this instance for a law targeting liability for sex trafficking. To understand this position from a legal perspective it's helpful to understand mens rea, or the mental intent of the criminal. There are all kinds of legal standards, from knowing/willful all the way down to strict liability, including between such as reckless and negligence. Strict liability is a very rare standard in criminal law, but basically means you will be guilty of a crime regardless of your intent. The most common/famous example from law schools is statutory rape. Normally crimes require some form of intent, but in the case of statutory rape the act alone is enough to convict. The extreme hypothetical is the case of a man meeting a girl at a bar that is 21 and over. The man takes a woman home, who should be 21 based on the circumstance, but in an abundance of caution checks her ID and confirms she is 21. Turns out she committed her own crime of possessing a fake government issued ID and she is really 16, the man has no legal defense based on lack of intent (lack of knowledge, willfulness, or even recklessness or negligence). The act occurred so he is guilty. There is another line of cases regarding "burying your head in the sand". Example, you take a package from person x who pays you $1M to deliver it to address Y. Turns out it's drugs, the common defense would be, there was no intent to possess or transport drugs, but case law holds you can't escape criminal liability by burying your head in the sand. I think the EFFs position is a slippery slope, sure we don't want criminal liability of internet platforms where they really didn't know about sex trafficking and even would have stopped it if they had known, but we don't want platforms claiming a la Uber, we are just a tech platform if people are using our platform to break laws we aren't liable for that. Yes, platforms should be liable when they help hide and facilitate crimes, especially in the case of Uber where their business model is facilitating drivers in illegally operating as taxis or rides for hire (as they do/did in many jurisdictions).
- lobotryas 9y ago
  Disagreed completely. In my view it is enough for a platform to comply with legitimate requests for information from LE and have a team that handles user-generated reports of illegal/rule breaking activity that occurs on the platform. Anything more is placing an undue burden on these companies and either making some technologies dangerous to use/invest in (bitcoin can be used to sell drugs) or barring small companies from particular business opportunities because they would require too much monitoring overhead. Let's trust the laws that already exist to handle things that have been illegal for a long time.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    >Let's trust the laws that already exist to handle things that have been illegal for a long time. So in other words I can create an Uber for murder for hire, and I'll connect people who want someone dead and people who will do the job; ill process the payment and take a cut. If the two conspirators get caught fine, let the laws that exist work it out...but I escape any liability "because I'm just a tech platform". All I have to do is respond to LE subpoenas during the murder investigation, that's what you are suggesting. Don't get me wrong I agree with points about bitcoin, that it serves as a legit technology and shouldn't be outlawed because it might be used for illegal transactions, but the arguement is not that "banks already engage in money laundering for drug dealers and other illegal businesses, and at worst they pay fines, no one has gone to jail; therefore, bitcoin should remain unregulated so even one else can engage in money laundering".
    - gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
      No running a platform explicitly for murder for hire is already illegal.
      - will_brown 9y ago
        I know it's extreme,but no there is no law about a murder for hire tech platform, just laws against various types of murder, all distinguished by the criminal intent. It's like saying many jurisdiction had laws against unlicensed taxis and illegal rides for hire, and we know Uber willfully operated in those jurisdictions...drivers have been arrested and fined, but nothing happened to Uber. So using real world examples, yes I would like to see platforms be liable where they knowingly and willfully operate to break the law. If people could interpret that reasonably, they would understand I'm not suggesting what is obviously being interpreted or projected onto my comments.
danjoc 9y ago
This sounds suspiciously like the Estonia leak. Specifically like the more extreme Option B part of the leak. https://edri.org/leaked-document-eu-presidency-calls-for-massive-internet-filtering/ https://edri.org/leaked-document-eu-presidency-calls-for-mas...

81 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

TL;DR: EFF is against criminal liability of internet platforms for the actions of their users...specifically in this instance for a law targeting liability for sex trafficking. To understand this position from a legal perspective it's helpful to understand mens rea, or the mental intent of the criminal. There are all kinds of legal standards, from knowing/willful all the way down to strict liability, including between such as reckless and negligence. Strict liability is a very rare standard in criminal law, but basically means you will be guilty of a crime regardless of your intent. The most common/famous example from law schools is statutory rape. Normally crimes require some form of intent, but in the case of statutory rape the act alone is enough to convict. The extreme hypothetical is the case of a man meeting a girl at a bar that is 21 and over. The man takes a woman home, who should be 21 based on the circumstance, but in an abundance of caution checks her ID and confirms she is 21. Turns out she committed her own crime of possessing a fake government issued ID and she is really 16, the man has no legal defense based on lack of intent (lack of knowledge, willfulness, or even recklessness or negligence). The act occurred so he is guilty. There is another line of cases regarding "burying your head in the sand". Example, you take a package from person x who pays you $1M to deliver it to address Y. Turns out it's drugs, the common defense would be, there was no intent to possess or transport drugs, but case law holds you can't escape criminal liability by burying your head in the sand. I think the EFFs position is a slippery slope, sure we don't want criminal liability of internet platforms where they really didn't know about sex trafficking and even would have stopped it if they had known, but we don't want platforms claiming a la Uber, we are just a tech platform if people are using our platform to break laws we aren't liable for that. Yes, platforms should be liable when they help hide and facilitate crimes, especially in the case of Uber where their business model is facilitating drivers in illegally operating as taxis or rides for hire (as they do/did in many jurisdictions).

lobotryas 9y ago
Disagreed completely. In my view it is enough for a platform to comply with legitimate requests for information from LE and have a team that handles user-generated reports of illegal/rule breaking activity that occurs on the platform. Anything more is placing an undue burden on these companies and either making some technologies dangerous to use/invest in (bitcoin can be used to sell drugs) or barring small companies from particular business opportunities because they would require too much monitoring overhead. Let's trust the laws that already exist to handle things that have been illegal for a long time.
- will_brown 9y ago
  >Let's trust the laws that already exist to handle things that have been illegal for a long time. So in other words I can create an Uber for murder for hire, and I'll connect people who want someone dead and people who will do the job; ill process the payment and take a cut. If the two conspirators get caught fine, let the laws that exist work it out...but I escape any liability "because I'm just a tech platform". All I have to do is respond to LE subpoenas during the murder investigation, that's what you are suggesting. Don't get me wrong I agree with points about bitcoin, that it serves as a legit technology and shouldn't be outlawed because it might be used for illegal transactions, but the arguement is not that "banks already engage in money laundering for drug dealers and other illegal businesses, and at worst they pay fines, no one has gone to jail; therefore, bitcoin should remain unregulated so even one else can engage in money laundering".
  - gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
    No running a platform explicitly for murder for hire is already illegal.
    - will_brown 9y ago
      I know it's extreme,but no there is no law about a murder for hire tech platform, just laws against various types of murder, all distinguished by the criminal intent. It's like saying many jurisdiction had laws against unlicensed taxis and illegal rides for hire, and we know Uber willfully operated in those jurisdictions...drivers have been arrested and fined, but nothing happened to Uber. So using real world examples, yes I would like to see platforms be liable where they knowingly and willfully operate to break the law. If people could interpret that reasonably, they would understand I'm not suggesting what is obviously being interpreted or projected onto my comments.

danjoc 9y ago

This sounds suspiciously like the Estonia leak. Specifically like the more extreme Option B part of the leak. https://edri.org/leaked-document-eu-presidency-calls-for-massive-internet-filtering/ https://edri.org/leaked-document-eu-presidency-calls-for-mas...