6 ms·

Here's the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 The current version

Here's the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 The current version seems to be narrowly written to only apply to sex trafficking.

chaostheory 9y ago
If it passes, it'll be inevitable for its scope to expand beyond sex trafficking - little by little.
- bsamuels 9y ago
  do you have evidence that something like that has happened before with such a specifically worded bill?
  - cm2187 9y ago
    I still remember the UK using the anti-terrorism act to seize funds from Icelandic banks in 2008. Iceland doesn't strike me as a terrorist nation. If laws can be abused they will be abused.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
and sex work generally. “Sex trafficking” is used as an excuse for a broader crackdown, forcing sex workers further underground and into more dangerous situations.
bitwize 9y ago
As far as the Feds (and some states) are concerned, all prostitution is trafficking. Did you pay for a prostitute's Uber home after your hook-up? Congratulations, you've engaged in "human trafficking". Enjoy your long prison sentence.
kbenson 9y ago
The bill seems at once too specific and too broad. Too specific in that it targets sex trafficking and prostitution narrowly, but too broad in that if you run the site and someone uses it for that, it doesn't seem to matter whether you had any idea it was happening or not. In other words, it looks like some politicians saw a topic they could exploit for political points and we're yet again stuck with crappy legislation because they couldn't be bothered to do the real part of their job, which is examine the topic in depth and make considered, useful legislation.
rayiner 9y ago
It's narrow in the sense that it only applies to sex trafficking. It's not narrow at all in terms of the relationship between your online service and sex trafficking. From your link: "(Sec. 5) The bill amends the federal criminal code to define a phrase related to the prohibition on sex trafficking. Currently, it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in a venture that engages in sex trafficking. This bill defines "participation in a venture" to mean knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a sex trafficking violation." It "facilitates" sex trafficking to be able to use gmail and Google Maps to conduct sex trafficking activities.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  You're leaving out "knowingly," which is an operative word there. If Google puts out a product offering called "Gmail for Pimps" or a maps overlay called "Where My Bitches At?" then they might be complicit in something. Until then, they are afforded deniability.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I'm not leaving out "knowingly." Google "knows" that its services are used to do all sorts of unsavory things. You have to assume that Gmail and Gchat have been used to arrange murders. Your examples cross the line from "knowing" to "intent." They show not only knowledge that products are used for illegal activities, but intention to encourage and profit from that illegal activity. Releasing "Gmail for Pimps" would suggest specific intent to profit from prostitution, rather than just "knowing" that Gmail is being used for prostitution. "Knowing" and "intent" are terms of art in criminal law, and "knowing" is well understood as being a lower standard than "intent." The law uses "knowing" on purpose.
    - slededit 9y ago
      That is a much broader reading then is used elsewhere. In general specific knowledge is required. > The word “knowingly” in law means consciously or with knowledge or complete understanding of the facts or circumstances. https://definitions.uslegal.com/k/knowingly/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/k/knowingly/

chaostheory 9y ago

If it passes, it'll be inevitable for its scope to expand beyond sex trafficking - little by little.

bsamuels 9y ago
do you have evidence that something like that has happened before with such a specifically worded bill?
- cm2187 9y ago
  I still remember the UK using the anti-terrorism act to seize funds from Icelandic banks in 2008. Iceland doesn't strike me as a terrorist nation. If laws can be abused they will be abused.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

and sex work generally. “Sex trafficking” is used as an excuse for a broader crackdown, forcing sex workers further underground and into more dangerous situations.

bitwize 9y ago

As far as the Feds (and some states) are concerned, all prostitution is trafficking. Did you pay for a prostitute's Uber home after your hook-up? Congratulations, you've engaged in "human trafficking". Enjoy your long prison sentence.

kbenson 9y ago

The bill seems at once too specific and too broad. Too specific in that it targets sex trafficking and prostitution narrowly, but too broad in that if you run the site and someone uses it for that, it doesn't seem to matter whether you had any idea it was happening or not. In other words, it looks like some politicians saw a topic they could exploit for political points and we're yet again stuck with crappy legislation because they couldn't be bothered to do the real part of their job, which is examine the topic in depth and make considered, useful legislation.

rayiner 9y ago

It's narrow in the sense that it only applies to sex trafficking. It's not narrow at all in terms of the relationship between your online service and sex trafficking. From your link: "(Sec. 5) The bill amends the federal criminal code to define a phrase related to the prohibition on sex trafficking. Currently, it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in a venture that engages in sex trafficking. This bill defines "participation in a venture" to mean knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a sex trafficking violation." It "facilitates" sex trafficking to be able to use gmail and Google Maps to conduct sex trafficking activities.

jstarfish 9y ago
You're leaving out "knowingly," which is an operative word there. If Google puts out a product offering called "Gmail for Pimps" or a maps overlay called "Where My Bitches At?" then they might be complicit in something. Until then, they are afforded deniability.
- rayiner 9y ago
  I'm not leaving out "knowingly." Google "knows" that its services are used to do all sorts of unsavory things. You have to assume that Gmail and Gchat have been used to arrange murders. Your examples cross the line from "knowing" to "intent." They show not only knowledge that products are used for illegal activities, but intention to encourage and profit from that illegal activity. Releasing "Gmail for Pimps" would suggest specific intent to profit from prostitution, rather than just "knowing" that Gmail is being used for prostitution. "Knowing" and "intent" are terms of art in criminal law, and "knowing" is well understood as being a lower standard than "intent." The law uses "knowing" on purpose.
  - slededit 9y ago
    That is a much broader reading then is used elsewhere. In general specific knowledge is required. > The word “knowingly” in law means consciously or with knowledge or complete understanding of the facts or circumstances. https://definitions.uslegal.com/k/knowingly/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/k/knowingly/