5 ms·
> Two, what the heck does "knowingly facilitate" mean? Historically this has been rather clear. Take the Silk Road. Arguably just an eBay clone on the dark we
by jstarfish 9y ago
> Two, what the heck does "knowingly facilitate" mean?
Historically this has been rather clear.
Take the Silk Road. Arguably just an eBay clone on the dark web, right? Except the proprietor specifically marketed it for the trade of drugs. There was no question about what its intended purpose was; he created it to sell drugs, internal documents show he knew drug trade was going on; by all accounts, he knowingly participated in the venture.
There was a small ISP somewhere in NY. Authorities notified them that they were hosting child porn provided by a customer. No biggie, right? Section 230 and all. Except they didn't take action to remove it, which put them in the camp of...knowingly participating in its possession/distribution. They got fined.
Backpage is in the same camp. They know what's going on, even contributing to it. They knowingly participate in the venture.
- rayiner 9y ago“Knowingly participate” is the existing language. I agree it’s clear. “Knowingly facilitate” is the new language. That has a much broader meaning, especially when you’re talking about Internet services, which are designed to “facilitate” whatever the user wants to do.
- jstarfish 9y agoI see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree, but for whatever facilitate does actually mean, you'd still have to be a knowing participant in the matter. In this context, I can only speculate the language was added wrt the editing of specific ads. They weren't assisting in their publication, they weren't supporting their publication, but they did know what they were and made changes to...facilitate...those ads staying published and under the radar of authorities. But I do see your point, and agree that it will likely be used for some unforeseen interpretation.
- rayiner 9y agoYou keep saying “participant.” The law basically removes the word “participation” by defining it to mean things other than what everyone would consider “participation.” You just have to be a knowing “facilitator.” Toyota can’t deny that it “knows” that it’s cars are used to “facilitate” drug deals. It’s not a “participant” in those drug deals, but the whole point of this law is to get rid of the “participation” requirement.
- ewrong 9y agoSurely there is still a distinction between knowing that people use your product to do bad things & knowing that specific people are doing specific bad things and continuing to allow it.
- cft 9y agoThe problem is that the cost to argue this legal distinction in a civil court could be in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range. Fine for Facebook, deadly for your gaming or crypto forum provider.
- incompatible 9y ago"Especially" Internet services, but the same argument would apply to offline services, like vehicle rentals or building roads. Presumably the law isn't intended to go that far.
- munificent 9y agoI don't know if pointing out a couple of true positives is a useful counterargument that a rule will not have many false positives. I could posit a law that says all brown-haired people should be summarily executed. You could then correctly note that the law would have caught the Green River Killer, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy. That doesn't make it a good law.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jessaustin 9y agoYeesh, I don't think you want to cite Silk Road as precedent. That investigation and prosecution is a black mark on the Law. The fact that multiple federal investigators also went to prison ought to be a clue for the ignorant, but there is far more wrong with Ulbricht's life sentence than just that...
- narag 9y agoThe fact that multiple federal investigators also went to prison... What? When did that happen? Please, could you share some link?
- amyjess 9y agoSome of the federal investigators stole some Bitcoins from the Silk Road over the course of their investigations and tried to cover it up and keep the Bitcoins for themselves. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/corrupt-silk-road-agent-carl-force-sentenced-to-78-months/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/corrupt-silk-roa... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/secret-service-agent-who-stole-820k-from-silk-road-pleads-guilty/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/secret-service-a...
- narag 9y agoThank you! I missed those news.
- jessaustin 9y agoThanks, but the link on The Great Shaun Bridges is somewhat out of date: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vv7dgj/great-moments-in-shaun-bridges-a-corrupt-silk-road-investigator https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vv7dgj/great-mome... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/shaun-bridges-ex-secret-service-agent-sentenced-ag/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/shaun-bridge... [EDIT:] Scroll to the bottom of the Motherboard article, click on this exemplar of LEOs' name, and read more. Apparently there may have been another LEO ridin' dirty on this investigation, only we don't know who. All we know is that she or he modified all the digital evidence that was later used to convict Ulbricht. This is law enforcement, people.
- mirimir 9y agoSilk Road would still be operating if they'd had adequate OPSEC. Same for other dark markets that police have busted. Operators made stupid mistakes.