5 ms·

Here's the text. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146... I can't ide

Here's the text. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146... I can't identify where EFFs concerns are coming from. There's a specific limitation of liability for online platforms and the entire process appears to be complaint driven and requires quite a bit of evidence from the complaintant. What actually concerns me in this bill? > (B) INVOLVING MINORS.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable individual who is a minor with intent to— > “(i) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor; or > “(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. > “(C) EXCEPTIONS.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to— > “(i) a lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of— > “(I) a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; or > “(II) an intelligence agency of the United States; Wut? Why do you need this? Are we the baddies?

tines 1y ago
Sting operation maybe?
tbrownaw 1y ago
Sounds like something meant to allow the vice squad to post "selfies" when they're pretending to be kids?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
wmf 1y ago
The limitation of liability is itself concerning because it means platforms won't care about fake takedowns. This law doesn't even have the counter notice process that DMCA has. You say take down X, they take it down, they're not liable. There's no appeal process that I see.
- timewizard 1y ago
  It applies to a narrow category of providers. > IN GENERAL.—The term “covered platform” means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application— > (i) that serves the public; and > (ii) (I) that primarily provides a forum for user-generated content, including messages, videos, images, games, and audio files; or > (II) for which it is in the regular course of trade or business of the website, online service, online application, or mobile application to publish, curate, host, or make available content of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. If you publish the content on your own website or on certain public websites you don't even have to respond to these requests. You do; however, open yourself to criminal and civil liability for publicly hosting any nonconseual visual images. Your provider is also excluded from service and cannot legally be compelled to participate in their removal.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    This sounds like any online forum of any kind, commercial or hobbyist, which allows uploading images. I guess you could call that a narrow category, but I wouldn't.
beej71 1y ago
We need it so I don't file a takedown request against what you just posted because I disagree with it.
yuliyp 1y ago
The scenarios envisioned in the way the bill is written don't actually apply sanely to how the Internet works. Anyone can send any number of (valid or not) reports to any service provider. That service provider then has to somehow decide if every one of those reports fits the definitions of an intimate visual depiction, and, if so, take it down. There's nothing preventing someone from making fraudulent claims, nor any punishment for doing so. The requirements in Section (3)(a)(1)(B) are trivial to automate ("Hi, my name is So-and-so. The image at URL is an intimate image of me posted without my consent. For reference, URL is a picture of me that confirms that URL contains a picture of me. My email address is example@invalid.com." satisfies the requirements of that section, at a glance). The limitation on liability is only saying they're not responsible for the consequences of taking something down, not for the consequences of leaving something up. That, plus the FTC being able to sue any company for the inevitable false negatives that will happen means that the only reasonable response to takedown requests is to be extremely cautious about rejecting them. It'll inevitably be abused for spurious takedowns way more than the DMCA already is.
- timewizard 1y ago
  > fits the definitions of an intimate visual depiction, Hardly seems difficult. I think a lot of services have TOSes which cover this type of content. The text of the bill also plainly defines what is covered. > are trivial to automate And removal is trivial to automate. I'm pretty sure providers already have systems which cover this case. Those that don't likely don't allow posting of pornographic material whether it's consensual or not. > they're not responsible for the consequences of taking something down So the market for "intimate depictions" got a little harder to participate in. This is a strange hill to fight over. > It'll inevitably be abused for spurious takedowns Of pornographic content. The law is pretty well confined to "visual depictions." I can see your argument on it's technical merits I just can't rationalize it into the real world other than for some absurdly narrow cases.
  - tpxl 1y ago
    How does your trivial removal automation distinguish between 'intimate depictions' and 'political imagery I dislike'? The whole point of this is discussion is that this is going to be used to censor everything, not just 'intimate visual depictions'.
mmooss 1y ago
The article says the takedown section is much broader than other sections.
misnome 1y ago
What’s stopping someone from taking down this post of yours? Assume they are a serial liar. Or that they are a political opponent with zero shame.

tines 1y ago

Sting operation maybe?

tbrownaw 1y ago

Sounds like something meant to allow the vice squad to post "selfies" when they're pretending to be kids?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

wmf 1y ago

The limitation of liability is itself concerning because it means platforms won't care about fake takedowns. This law doesn't even have the counter notice process that DMCA has. You say take down X, they take it down, they're not liable. There's no appeal process that I see.

timewizard 1y ago
It applies to a narrow category of providers. > IN GENERAL.—The term “covered platform” means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application— > (i) that serves the public; and > (ii) (I) that primarily provides a forum for user-generated content, including messages, videos, images, games, and audio files; or > (II) for which it is in the regular course of trade or business of the website, online service, online application, or mobile application to publish, curate, host, or make available content of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. If you publish the content on your own website or on certain public websites you don't even have to respond to these requests. You do; however, open yourself to criminal and civil liability for publicly hosting any nonconseual visual images. Your provider is also excluded from service and cannot legally be compelled to participate in their removal.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  This sounds like any online forum of any kind, commercial or hobbyist, which allows uploading images. I guess you could call that a narrow category, but I wouldn't.

beej71 1y ago

We need it so I don't file a takedown request against what you just posted because I disagree with it.

yuliyp 1y ago

The scenarios envisioned in the way the bill is written don't actually apply sanely to how the Internet works. Anyone can send any number of (valid or not) reports to any service provider. That service provider then has to somehow decide if every one of those reports fits the definitions of an intimate visual depiction, and, if so, take it down. There's nothing preventing someone from making fraudulent claims, nor any punishment for doing so. The requirements in Section (3)(a)(1)(B) are trivial to automate ("Hi, my name is So-and-so. The image at URL is an intimate image of me posted without my consent. For reference, URL is a picture of me that confirms that URL contains a picture of me. My email address is example@invalid.com." satisfies the requirements of that section, at a glance). The limitation on liability is only saying they're not responsible for the consequences of taking something down, not for the consequences of leaving something up. That, plus the FTC being able to sue any company for the inevitable false negatives that will happen means that the only reasonable response to takedown requests is to be extremely cautious about rejecting them. It'll inevitably be abused for spurious takedowns way more than the DMCA already is.

timewizard 1y ago
> fits the definitions of an intimate visual depiction, Hardly seems difficult. I think a lot of services have TOSes which cover this type of content. The text of the bill also plainly defines what is covered. > are trivial to automate And removal is trivial to automate. I'm pretty sure providers already have systems which cover this case. Those that don't likely don't allow posting of pornographic material whether it's consensual or not. > they're not responsible for the consequences of taking something down So the market for "intimate depictions" got a little harder to participate in. This is a strange hill to fight over. > It'll inevitably be abused for spurious takedowns Of pornographic content. The law is pretty well confined to "visual depictions." I can see your argument on it's technical merits I just can't rationalize it into the real world other than for some absurdly narrow cases.
- tpxl 1y ago
  How does your trivial removal automation distinguish between 'intimate depictions' and 'political imagery I dislike'? The whole point of this is discussion is that this is going to be used to censor everything, not just 'intimate visual depictions'.

mmooss 1y ago

The article says the takedown section is much broader than other sections.

misnome 1y ago

What’s stopping someone from taking down this post of yours? Assume they are a serial liar. Or that they are a political opponent with zero shame.