5 ms·

I think it's simple. The US postal service uses postal inspectors to try and identify packages containing narcotics[0], and yet we don't make them liable for th

I think it's simple. The US postal service uses postal inspectors to try and identify packages containing narcotics[0], and yet we don't make them liable for the packages they miss. Any attempt to moderate undesirable content on a website should not then make you liable for the content you miss. [0]: https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/ https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/

vageli 7y ago
> I think it's simple. The US postal service uses postal inspectors to try and identify packages containing narcotics[0], and yet we don't make them liable for the packages they miss. Any attempt to moderate undesirable content on a website should not then make you liable for the content you miss. > [0]: https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/ https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/ Then what about sites that would use this to their advantage and half ass the whole thing? (fwiw I'm with you, just entertaining the argument) How do you differentiate between ignorance and malice in response? I guess via emails and memos that would come up in discovery?
- whatshisface 7y ago
  If you're ignorant or malicious the same thing happens: the government kindly informs you that someone is using your website to break the law, and then you can either do something or become clearly guilty of knowingly supporting them. (The government knows you know because they know they told you.)
  - jacobush 7y ago
    They fix that case swiftly, then go on to ignore new cases?
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Law enforcement, typically tasked with enforcing laws, would not ignore the new cases. Individual citizens enforcing laws themselves is nice but overall we don't depend on vigilantes.
      - ethbro 7y ago
        Parent presumably means if the person in the moderator position ignores new cases. To which it seems like a fair response would rely more on free speech perspectives. Essentially, can it be said that the majority of the platform is used for illegal activities? Or are the illegal activities a minority of some other, lawful activities? I'd want a system where Reddit is in the clear, but CreditCardSkimmersChat is not.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > Parent presumably means if the person in the moderator position ignores new cases. Which is what they're supposed to do. They're not the police, the police are the police. > Essentially, can it be said that the majority of the platform is used for illegal activities? Or are the illegal activities a minority of some other, lawful activities? This doesn't work because it ends up prohibiting the lawful things anyway. You have a platform that promises witch hunts and the innocent victims of witch hunts get evicted from there, and you have a platform that promises no witch hunts and those people go there but so do all the witches and then you get calls to shut it down because there are many witches. You're left with nowhere for the innocent victims of witch hunts to go. > I'd want a system where Reddit is in the clear, but CreditCardSkimmersChat is not. They tried this with SESTA and it was a monumental failure. It turns out when you do this, CreditCardSkimmersChat.com goes away and is replaced with CreditCardSkimmersChat.ru and all that does is make law enforcement's job harder. You want CreditCardSkimmersChat.com to carry on existing, because that's the place you send your agents to camp out in the chat with a logger and execute a warrant to have their ISP capture all their traffic, and investigate anybody who shows up from your jurisdiction, and collect stolen credit card numbers to report to the credit card companies before they can be used for fraudulent purchases. You don't want to shut it down because once you know it exists it's a honeypot with a previous reputation for not being a honeypot, and all shutting it down will do is cause it to reappear in Russia or on Tor or at a new site you haven't rediscovered yet meanwhile lots more credit card fraud is happening, which only makes law enforcement's job harder and less effective. It's like finally discovering the phone number of the crime boss and calling the phone company and ordering them to disconnect their phone.
- pas 7y ago
  The same thing that we do with every kind of organization. We demand adequate controls, incentives, whistleblower protection, paper trail (auditability and accountability for the higher ups), documented internal policies and sticking to them. (And demand that they pay for external audits, mock cases, red team tests, and so on.) This sort of works. And it can be made very effective. (Basically by criminalizing grossly negligent auditing and spending public money on enforcing it, the whole structure snaps into place eventually.) Currently financial organizations are allowed to be lax, because audits are lax, because the banking license authority doesn't give much of a shit.
zeepzeep 7y ago
I will steal this argument! Very good example, thank you. This is so clear, I hope I'll convince some people.
appleflaxen 7y ago
That analogy is flawed because USPS doesn't know what's in the packages, but you know exactly what's on your forum.
- anon3109478190 7y ago
  Not if it's end-to-end encrypted, which is exactly the topic here. With this bill it's highly likely that policing will be required of services providing end-to-end encryption too, which then makes that encryption impossible while complying with the "best practices".
  - nybble41 7y ago
    Also, even if the content itself is 100% public, there's no way site owners can be expected to assign someone to monitor every discussion in real-time. Even just investigating content flagged by other users can easily turn into a full-time job for a moderate-size service.

vageli 7y ago

> I think it's simple. The US postal service uses postal inspectors to try and identify packages containing narcotics[0], and yet we don't make them liable for the packages they miss. Any attempt to moderate undesirable content on a website should not then make you liable for the content you miss. > [0]: https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/ https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/ Then what about sites that would use this to their advantage and half ass the whole thing? (fwiw I'm with you, just entertaining the argument) How do you differentiate between ignorance and malice in response? I guess via emails and memos that would come up in discovery?

whatshisface 7y ago
If you're ignorant or malicious the same thing happens: the government kindly informs you that someone is using your website to break the law, and then you can either do something or become clearly guilty of knowingly supporting them. (The government knows you know because they know they told you.)
- jacobush 7y ago
  They fix that case swiftly, then go on to ignore new cases?
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Law enforcement, typically tasked with enforcing laws, would not ignore the new cases. Individual citizens enforcing laws themselves is nice but overall we don't depend on vigilantes.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      Parent presumably means if the person in the moderator position ignores new cases. To which it seems like a fair response would rely more on free speech perspectives. Essentially, can it be said that the majority of the platform is used for illegal activities? Or are the illegal activities a minority of some other, lawful activities? I'd want a system where Reddit is in the clear, but CreditCardSkimmersChat is not.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > Parent presumably means if the person in the moderator position ignores new cases. Which is what they're supposed to do. They're not the police, the police are the police. > Essentially, can it be said that the majority of the platform is used for illegal activities? Or are the illegal activities a minority of some other, lawful activities? This doesn't work because it ends up prohibiting the lawful things anyway. You have a platform that promises witch hunts and the innocent victims of witch hunts get evicted from there, and you have a platform that promises no witch hunts and those people go there but so do all the witches and then you get calls to shut it down because there are many witches. You're left with nowhere for the innocent victims of witch hunts to go. > I'd want a system where Reddit is in the clear, but CreditCardSkimmersChat is not. They tried this with SESTA and it was a monumental failure. It turns out when you do this, CreditCardSkimmersChat.com goes away and is replaced with CreditCardSkimmersChat.ru and all that does is make law enforcement's job harder. You want CreditCardSkimmersChat.com to carry on existing, because that's the place you send your agents to camp out in the chat with a logger and execute a warrant to have their ISP capture all their traffic, and investigate anybody who shows up from your jurisdiction, and collect stolen credit card numbers to report to the credit card companies before they can be used for fraudulent purchases. You don't want to shut it down because once you know it exists it's a honeypot with a previous reputation for not being a honeypot, and all shutting it down will do is cause it to reappear in Russia or on Tor or at a new site you haven't rediscovered yet meanwhile lots more credit card fraud is happening, which only makes law enforcement's job harder and less effective. It's like finally discovering the phone number of the crime boss and calling the phone company and ordering them to disconnect their phone.
pas 7y ago
The same thing that we do with every kind of organization. We demand adequate controls, incentives, whistleblower protection, paper trail (auditability and accountability for the higher ups), documented internal policies and sticking to them. (And demand that they pay for external audits, mock cases, red team tests, and so on.) This sort of works. And it can be made very effective. (Basically by criminalizing grossly negligent auditing and spending public money on enforcing it, the whole structure snaps into place eventually.) Currently financial organizations are allowed to be lax, because audits are lax, because the banking license authority doesn't give much of a shit.

zeepzeep 7y ago

I will steal this argument! Very good example, thank you. This is so clear, I hope I'll convince some people.

appleflaxen 7y ago

That analogy is flawed because USPS doesn't know what's in the packages, but you know exactly what's on your forum.

anon3109478190 7y ago
Not if it's end-to-end encrypted, which is exactly the topic here. With this bill it's highly likely that policing will be required of services providing end-to-end encryption too, which then makes that encryption impossible while complying with the "best practices".
- nybble41 7y ago
  Also, even if the content itself is 100% public, there's no way site owners can be expected to assign someone to monitor every discussion in real-time. Even just investigating content flagged by other users can easily turn into a full-time job for a moderate-size service.