8 ms·

Doesn't matter though. The web property was taken down, and safer-ish sex work suffered a set back. Sex trafficking is the new "terrorism" whereby the governm

Doesn't matter though. The web property was taken down, and safer-ish sex work suffered a set back. Sex trafficking is the new "terrorism" whereby the government or other organizations can allege it, and the targeted entity is pretty much SOL.

rhizome 5y ago
It's definitely "other organizations" that are the engine of this stuff.
- commoner 5y ago
  One of those "other organizations" is the NCMEC, which was established by[1] and heavily funded by[2] the U.S. Congress. NCMEC has consistently tried to impede the implementation of end-to-end encryption. Even before the Apple/iCloud debacle, the NCMEC pushed tech companies to prohibit users under 18 from using end-to-end encryption:[3] > On February 20, 2020, NCMEC released an open letter to the technology industry outlining five Principles to Safeguard Children in End-to-End Encrypted Environments. > - Do not implement end-to-end encrypted communications for accounts where a user has indicated they are under 18 years old. Restricting children from secure communications is an especially user-hostile way to advocate against child abuse. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121029010231/http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=4362 https://web.archive.org/web/20121029010231/http://www.missin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Children%27s_Assistance_Reauthorization_Act_of_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Children%27s_Assistanc... [3] https://www.missingkids.org/e2ee https://www.missingkids.org/e2ee
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    Given that children have attenuated rights in basically every society, restricting access to E2EE seems like an imperfect but deeply net positive way to reduce child harm. What “savory” actions for which a minor would use E2EE are you concerned are jeopardized by such a proposal? (Particularly interested in what actions or content is jeopardized, not the ideal of privacy, which I agree is important even for minors)
    - commoner 5y ago
      Preventing children from using E2EE is not a "net positive" just as preventing adults from using E2EE is also not a "net positive". Privacy is a human right, not a right that should be made exclusive to adults. Just because children are restricted from other activities does not make it justified to restrict their rights further. End-to-end encryption helps prevent messages from being intercepted by intermediaries, such as companies and governments. For example, an advocate (for human rights, environment, or any other cause) who is under 18 may wish to coordinate a protest or some other activity while minimizing exposure to surveillance from potential adversaries. Or in a more ordinary example, children may want to communicate with others without being profiled by advertisers or government agencies through the content of their messages. Secure communications are as valuable to children as they are to adults.
      - pyuser583 5y ago
        I review my daughters devices regularly. She has encounters extremely predatory content - basically groomers reaching out to see who will bite. As a parent, I have a right to review my childs communications. If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted. That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message. That’s makes parental oversight extremely difficult.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        The only connection between disappearing messages and end to end encryption is they're both privacy features.
        okamiueru 5y ago
        Are you reviewing the messages on their devices, or package sniffing at the gateway? I don't see how E2EE has any effect on whether a device/application retains communications or not. A separate argument is that kids experiment and do dumb stuff together with other kids. Forcing them to not be able to do so in private without bad actors collecting images seems like a pretty significant sacrifice in human rights. I get the intention, I just think it is very misguided.
dkdk8283 5y ago
I have personal experience with Backpage. They had a team of 70 analysts on staff to review all ads and were the #1 source of trafficking tips. I believe the bp owner got into a pissing match with the AZ DA and eventually lost. Many people who hide behind the US government are scumbags. Fuck FOSTA/SESTA too.
- seneca 5y ago
  Strongly agree with the sentiment of your post. I'm curious how you came about the information that they were the #1 source of trafficking tips. That seems like the government killing a golden goose (not that that is surprising in any way).
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    It depends. If they thought that backpage enabled/induced trafficking, then them being a top source of tips isn’t that valuable. Would you let a drug dealer run a meth lab if he reported his customers for prosecution? You can argue with my analogy, and I don’t quite agree with it myself, but I can see the government seeing it that way.
    - setr 5y ago
      Doesn’t the three-letters do that like… all the time? That’s basically the definition of honeypotting As I recall, the FBI did exactly that fairly recently, when they pwned some credit card trading site and ran it themselves for years.
      - bigiain 5y ago
        They ran a child porn dark web site for two weeks: "Playpen was a notorious darknet child pornography website that operated from August 2014 to March 2015.[1][2] The website operated through a hidden service through the Tor network which allowed users to use the website anonymously. After running the website for 6 months, the website owner Steven W. Chase was captured by the FBI. After his capture, the FBI continued to run the website for another 13 days as part of Operation Pacifier." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playpen_(website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playpen_(website)
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
2 weeks ago, it became a felony in Texas to pay for sex. Unlike most of the other batshit laws passed in Texas this year, this one had wide bipartisan support. As a gay man, while this is just anecdotal, it seems to me that the dynamics of gay prostitution are very different from most straight prostitution. I used to think it quite sad to hear about gay men paying for sex. I mean, these days, it is extremely easy for gay men to find other gay men to have sex with, for free, as long as you're willing to have sex with guys who generally look like you do. Then I had some friends who had escorted at some point, and they explained the dynamic. Quite simply, many of the "johns" were older, and they basically wanted a hot, younger guy to have sex with them (of course there were other types, for example closeted men). None of the guys I knew who escorted ever felt coerced into doing it, beyond the fact that they needed money, and to them it was an easy way to get money. Of course, I'm sure there are guys who did feel pressured into doing it, and sex trafficking does occur. But there are still many, perfectly consenting adults who pay for sex as part of "the world's oldest profession". We should stop this moral panic and focus laws to help actual victims of sex trafficking.
- voltaireodactyl 5y ago
  Just for the record, all the specifics you've listed with regard to gay prostitution also apply to heterosexual prostitution, to my best understanding. That is to say, much of the clientele are older men who just want a hot, younger woman to have sex with them. There are also other types. Some female escorts do not feel coerced, while another significant percentage certainly do. I would imagine that's the same on both front as well. While I totally recognize that male prostitutes are perhaps more likely to be able to resist physical aggression, and therefore have a bit more agency (which I think may have been the point you were leading toward), I think the moral panic crosses all borders, and I agree that once (if) we take that out of the equation, the rest of the conversation becomes much easier.
- bongoman37 5y ago
  Did they also outlaw taking a woman out on an expensive date?
  - 5y ago
throwaway91321 5y ago
To add to this, "sex trafficking" to most people means "sex slavery," but if you look at the definition it's a broad term that includes things like helping a prostitute immigrate illegally. And then law enforcement takes things a step further, often referring to any form of prostitution as "sex trafficking" because they know that if they simply call it prostitution, most people won't see the big problem. It's gotten to the point where I'm skeptical of any news stories I read where authorities are claiming "sex trafficking." It's simply astounding how many of those, if you follow-up on them, end up being simple prostitution cases in the end, with the supposed victims being charged by authorities for engaging in prostitution. The Robert Kraft case is a good recent example. Authorities made a big announcement of saying Kraft and other men were involved in a sex trafficking ring, and the media uncritically spread their claims. If you look at online comments from the time, most people assume that Kraft and others were taking advantage of unwilling sex slaves. But months later the charges against the men were dropped, and the only people that ended up being punished were the women themselves, for prostitution. Authorities have a habit of making a big deceitful announcement that they're saving these women, then when the public and media attention goes elsewhere, the women are the ones the authorities end up punishing.
- nullifidian 5y ago
  "But anti-prostitution activists like Hughes often use “sexual exploitation” to include any kind of prostitution or sex work—in fact, Hughes insists in her article that "trafficking occurs even if the woman consents.” " https://newrepublic.com/article/123302/human-trafficking-has-become-meaningless-term https://newrepublic.com/article/123302/human-trafficking-has...
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    The fact is that people are desperate for money. And when you're a 20 year old you have something that you can sell that earns money. Prostitution is the oldest job in the world as they say. Only a Star Trek post scarcity economic miracle will eradicate it.
    - 5y ago

rhizome 5y ago

It's definitely "other organizations" that are the engine of this stuff.

commoner 5y ago
One of those "other organizations" is the NCMEC, which was established by[1] and heavily funded by[2] the U.S. Congress. NCMEC has consistently tried to impede the implementation of end-to-end encryption. Even before the Apple/iCloud debacle, the NCMEC pushed tech companies to prohibit users under 18 from using end-to-end encryption:[3] > On February 20, 2020, NCMEC released an open letter to the technology industry outlining five Principles to Safeguard Children in End-to-End Encrypted Environments. > - Do not implement end-to-end encrypted communications for accounts where a user has indicated they are under 18 years old. Restricting children from secure communications is an especially user-hostile way to advocate against child abuse. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121029010231/http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=4362 https://web.archive.org/web/20121029010231/http://www.missin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Children%27s_Assistance_Reauthorization_Act_of_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Children%27s_Assistanc... [3] https://www.missingkids.org/e2ee https://www.missingkids.org/e2ee
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Given that children have attenuated rights in basically every society, restricting access to E2EE seems like an imperfect but deeply net positive way to reduce child harm. What “savory” actions for which a minor would use E2EE are you concerned are jeopardized by such a proposal? (Particularly interested in what actions or content is jeopardized, not the ideal of privacy, which I agree is important even for minors)
  - commoner 5y ago
    Preventing children from using E2EE is not a "net positive" just as preventing adults from using E2EE is also not a "net positive". Privacy is a human right, not a right that should be made exclusive to adults. Just because children are restricted from other activities does not make it justified to restrict their rights further. End-to-end encryption helps prevent messages from being intercepted by intermediaries, such as companies and governments. For example, an advocate (for human rights, environment, or any other cause) who is under 18 may wish to coordinate a protest or some other activity while minimizing exposure to surveillance from potential adversaries. Or in a more ordinary example, children may want to communicate with others without being profiled by advertisers or government agencies through the content of their messages. Secure communications are as valuable to children as they are to adults.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      I review my daughters devices regularly. She has encounters extremely predatory content - basically groomers reaching out to see who will bite. As a parent, I have a right to review my childs communications. If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted. That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message. That’s makes parental oversight extremely difficult.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        The only connection between disappearing messages and end to end encryption is they're both privacy features.
      - okamiueru 5y ago
        Are you reviewing the messages on their devices, or package sniffing at the gateway? I don't see how E2EE has any effect on whether a device/application retains communications or not. A separate argument is that kids experiment and do dumb stuff together with other kids. Forcing them to not be able to do so in private without bad actors collecting images seems like a pretty significant sacrifice in human rights. I get the intention, I just think it is very misguided.

dkdk8283 5y ago

I have personal experience with Backpage. They had a team of 70 analysts on staff to review all ads and were the #1 source of trafficking tips. I believe the bp owner got into a pissing match with the AZ DA and eventually lost. Many people who hide behind the US government are scumbags. Fuck FOSTA/SESTA too.

seneca 5y ago
Strongly agree with the sentiment of your post. I'm curious how you came about the information that they were the #1 source of trafficking tips. That seems like the government killing a golden goose (not that that is surprising in any way).
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  It depends. If they thought that backpage enabled/induced trafficking, then them being a top source of tips isn’t that valuable. Would you let a drug dealer run a meth lab if he reported his customers for prosecution? You can argue with my analogy, and I don’t quite agree with it myself, but I can see the government seeing it that way.
  - setr 5y ago
    Doesn’t the three-letters do that like… all the time? That’s basically the definition of honeypotting As I recall, the FBI did exactly that fairly recently, when they pwned some credit card trading site and ran it themselves for years.
    - bigiain 5y ago
      They ran a child porn dark web site for two weeks: "Playpen was a notorious darknet child pornography website that operated from August 2014 to March 2015.[1][2] The website operated through a hidden service through the Tor network which allowed users to use the website anonymously. After running the website for 6 months, the website owner Steven W. Chase was captured by the FBI. After his capture, the FBI continued to run the website for another 13 days as part of Operation Pacifier." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playpen_(website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playpen_(website)

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

2 weeks ago, it became a felony in Texas to pay for sex. Unlike most of the other batshit laws passed in Texas this year, this one had wide bipartisan support. As a gay man, while this is just anecdotal, it seems to me that the dynamics of gay prostitution are very different from most straight prostitution. I used to think it quite sad to hear about gay men paying for sex. I mean, these days, it is extremely easy for gay men to find other gay men to have sex with, for free, as long as you're willing to have sex with guys who generally look like you do. Then I had some friends who had escorted at some point, and they explained the dynamic. Quite simply, many of the "johns" were older, and they basically wanted a hot, younger guy to have sex with them (of course there were other types, for example closeted men). None of the guys I knew who escorted ever felt coerced into doing it, beyond the fact that they needed money, and to them it was an easy way to get money. Of course, I'm sure there are guys who did feel pressured into doing it, and sex trafficking does occur. But there are still many, perfectly consenting adults who pay for sex as part of "the world's oldest profession". We should stop this moral panic and focus laws to help actual victims of sex trafficking.

voltaireodactyl 5y ago
Just for the record, all the specifics you've listed with regard to gay prostitution also apply to heterosexual prostitution, to my best understanding. That is to say, much of the clientele are older men who just want a hot, younger woman to have sex with them. There are also other types. Some female escorts do not feel coerced, while another significant percentage certainly do. I would imagine that's the same on both front as well. While I totally recognize that male prostitutes are perhaps more likely to be able to resist physical aggression, and therefore have a bit more agency (which I think may have been the point you were leading toward), I think the moral panic crosses all borders, and I agree that once (if) we take that out of the equation, the rest of the conversation becomes much easier.
bongoman37 5y ago
Did they also outlaw taking a woman out on an expensive date?
- 5y ago

throwaway91321 5y ago

To add to this, "sex trafficking" to most people means "sex slavery," but if you look at the definition it's a broad term that includes things like helping a prostitute immigrate illegally. And then law enforcement takes things a step further, often referring to any form of prostitution as "sex trafficking" because they know that if they simply call it prostitution, most people won't see the big problem. It's gotten to the point where I'm skeptical of any news stories I read where authorities are claiming "sex trafficking." It's simply astounding how many of those, if you follow-up on them, end up being simple prostitution cases in the end, with the supposed victims being charged by authorities for engaging in prostitution. The Robert Kraft case is a good recent example. Authorities made a big announcement of saying Kraft and other men were involved in a sex trafficking ring, and the media uncritically spread their claims. If you look at online comments from the time, most people assume that Kraft and others were taking advantage of unwilling sex slaves. But months later the charges against the men were dropped, and the only people that ended up being punished were the women themselves, for prostitution. Authorities have a habit of making a big deceitful announcement that they're saving these women, then when the public and media attention goes elsewhere, the women are the ones the authorities end up punishing.

nullifidian 5y ago
"But anti-prostitution activists like Hughes often use “sexual exploitation” to include any kind of prostitution or sex work—in fact, Hughes insists in her article that "trafficking occurs even if the woman consents.” " https://newrepublic.com/article/123302/human-trafficking-has-become-meaningless-term https://newrepublic.com/article/123302/human-trafficking-has...
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  The fact is that people are desperate for money. And when you're a 20 year old you have something that you can sell that earns money. Prostitution is the oldest job in the world as they say. Only a Star Trek post scarcity economic miracle will eradicate it.
  - 5y ago