3 ms·

Can someone explain why the reporting requirements of 18 US 2258A aren't sufficient? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A https://www.law.cornell.ed

by cft 9y ago

Can someone explain why the reporting requirements of 18 US 2258A aren't sufficient? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A Why cannot they be simply amended to include sex trafficking?

adventured 9y ago
They have vast means to prosecute sites like Backpage. As other articles have noted [1], the DOJ has refused to get involved in going after Backpage for years, which should be an outrage given the context. The obvious conclusion is, it's all intentional. The DOJ has been told to stand down, so the SESTA pushers can build up a case for the need for new legislation, new levers of power & control over the Internet. [1] "CDA 230 does not shield platforms from federal prosecution. The law very clearly outlines that exception to the liability shield, anticipating that crimes like child pornography and child exploitation would be prosecuted by the federal authorities. The US Department of Justice, for whatever reason, has not shown any inclination to pursue sites like Backpage." https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308066/sex-trafficking-bill-sesta-google-cda-230 https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308066/sex-trafficking-...
- cft 9y ago
  By the way, Backpage has shut down their adult services section. Their traffic did not drop to zero however, as seen at [1]. That means that Backpages has had other substantial legitimate uses, besides adult services. Craigslist also had adult services section, that it voluntarily shut down [2]. This begs the question: why is Backpage prosecuted, but Craigslist was not? What has changed between 2009 and now? 1. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/backpage.com#trafficstats https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/backpage.com#trafficstats 2. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/craigslist-gives-in-will-shut-down-erotic-services-section/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/craigslist-gives...
  - adventured 9y ago
    Or of course consider how they went after Kim Dotcom, the effort that was put into crushing Megaupload and Kim over common media piracy. Are we to believe that the DOJ & Co couldn't have smashed Backpage for knowingly allowing trafficking years ago? They couldn't have scooped up proof that the operators knew about that activity, a dozen different ways given the tools at their disposal? They could destroy Silk Road and get Ross Ulbricht, but they couldn't get the Backpage guys on anything? Bullshit of course, it's beyond obvious those guys knew what their site was facilitating, they were making a vast fortune off of it. It all reeks of being allowed to continue as an enemy number one to facilitate legislation like SESTA.
- throwa34943way 9y ago
  Your verge link provides quite a strange link in the comments, which is quite ironic given the circumstances : > Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Liability Shield https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-liability-shield/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-li...

by cft 9y ago

adventured 9y ago

They have vast means to prosecute sites like Backpage. As other articles have noted [1], the DOJ has refused to get involved in going after Backpage for years, which should be an outrage given the context. The obvious conclusion is, it's all intentional. The DOJ has been told to stand down, so the SESTA pushers can build up a case for the need for new legislation, new levers of power & control over the Internet. [1] "CDA 230 does not shield platforms from federal prosecution. The law very clearly outlines that exception to the liability shield, anticipating that crimes like child pornography and child exploitation would be prosecuted by the federal authorities. The US Department of Justice, for whatever reason, has not shown any inclination to pursue sites like Backpage." https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308066/sex-trafficking-bill-sesta-google-cda-230 https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308066/sex-trafficking-...

cft 9y ago
By the way, Backpage has shut down their adult services section. Their traffic did not drop to zero however, as seen at [1]. That means that Backpages has had other substantial legitimate uses, besides adult services. Craigslist also had adult services section, that it voluntarily shut down [2]. This begs the question: why is Backpage prosecuted, but Craigslist was not? What has changed between 2009 and now? 1. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/backpage.com#trafficstats https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/backpage.com#trafficstats 2. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/craigslist-gives-in-will-shut-down-erotic-services-section/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/craigslist-gives...
- adventured 9y ago
  Or of course consider how they went after Kim Dotcom, the effort that was put into crushing Megaupload and Kim over common media piracy. Are we to believe that the DOJ & Co couldn't have smashed Backpage for knowingly allowing trafficking years ago? They couldn't have scooped up proof that the operators knew about that activity, a dozen different ways given the tools at their disposal? They could destroy Silk Road and get Ross Ulbricht, but they couldn't get the Backpage guys on anything? Bullshit of course, it's beyond obvious those guys knew what their site was facilitating, they were making a vast fortune off of it. It all reeks of being allowed to continue as an enemy number one to facilitate legislation like SESTA.
throwa34943way 9y ago
Your verge link provides quite a strange link in the comments, which is quite ironic given the circumstances : > Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Liability Shield https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-liability-shield/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-li...