New State Law Put ISPs and Libraries at Risk

[tubemonkey]

Statute Puts Online Libraries and Other Service Providers at Risk

Seattle - The Internet Archive has filed a federal challenge to a new Washington State law that intends to make online service providers criminally liable for providing access to third parties' offensive materials.

>>>snip<<<

SB 6251 was passed with the hope of criminalizing the dissemination of underage sex trafficking ads and imposing a requirement to confirm the ages of individuals in such ads prior to publication. The law, however, is fraught with problems. As written, the vaguely-worded statute – making it a felony to "directly or indirectly" provide access to any material that might constitute an "explicit or implicit" commercial offer for sex – could be read to apply not only to posters but to neutral entities that provide access to online information, including ISPs, Internet cafes, and libraries. This would result in a chilling effect as such entities begin feeling pressured to censor protected online speech in order to safely stay on the right side of the unclear law.

So much for net neutrality.

[xg4bx]

the government really is desperate to seize control of the internet, they're trying literally everything they can think of. i have trawled some of the deepest and darkest corners of the interwebs and not once have i ever seen an ad for 'underage sex trafficking'. its just one of those striking little names and agendas they stick on really onerous legislation because hey, who would possibly be for this? if you're against the bill you must just want kids sold into sex slavery.

and just like every single other bill that comes out of washington, its no surprise whatsoever that the language is 'vague' and 'broad'. if you want to target a problem then target a problem, they're not fooling anyone with their shotgun approach.

[cfrizz]

This law is coming out of Washington state, not Washington DC. My guess is that it will be struck down at some point.

[plib]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

the government really is desperate to seize control of the internet, they're trying literally everything they can think of. i have trawled some of the deepest and darkest corners of the interwebs and not once have i ever seen an ad for 'underage sex trafficking'. its just one of those striking little names and agendas they stick on really onerous legislation because hey, who would possibly be for this? if you're against the bill you must just want kids sold into sex slavery.

and just like every single other bill that comes out of washington, its no surprise whatsoever that the language is 'vague' and 'broad'. if you want to target a problem then target a problem, they're not fooling anyone with their shotgun approach.

Unfortunately it's not confined to Washington - State or DC.

Vic Toews draws line on lawful access: You’re with us, or the child pornographers.

[petrucci]

I agree with xg4bx in that the government is trying to control the net. The government stays in power because it controls business. Business now takes place on the net, so the government wants to control the net.

I think behind the scenes of this bill is a company that wants to put a competitor under, or a company that did not pay off lawmakers, who are now enacting revenge.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

the government really is desperate to seize control of the internet, they're trying literally everything they can think of. i have trawled some of the deepest and darkest corners of the interwebs and not once have i ever seen an ad for 'underage sex trafficking'. its just one of those striking little names and agendas they stick on really onerous legislation because hey, who would possibly be for this? if you're against the bill you must just want kids sold into sex slavery.

and just like every single other bill that comes out of washington, its no surprise whatsoever that the language is 'vague' and 'broad'. if you want to target a problem then target a problem, they're not fooling anyone with their shotgun approach.

You must have been extraordinarily lucky. As recently as eight weeks ago I was searching on Google Images for an image suitable for the cover of a childrens' book and I was presented with a page of thumbnails that included what was clearly a pre-pubescent girl sexually engaged with adult males. She was about eight or nine. I contacted Google and their response was a suggestion to turn safe browsing on. I contacted the local Police, who are very active in tracking paedophiles, and they informed me that they were aware of it, but could do nothing about it as it was located in Russia and as soon as they blacklisted it, it would change its name and ISP.

My search criteria was absolutely innocent, just a family images search, but I will not detail the search terms here. Although it is difficult, I support legislation that controls ISPs limiting links to such things. We want freedom, but what we actually have is anarchy on the web. We don't need, nor should we support anarchy.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

the government really is desperate to seize control of the internet, they're trying literally everything they can think of.

A far less cynical view is that governments are trying to find ways to enforce laws that are already on the books. This is easier said than done because of the international nature of the Internet

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by plib

Unfortunately it's not confined to Washington - State or DC.

Vic Toews draws line on lawful access: You’re with us, or the child pornographers.

well when its put in such black and white terms, i'm going to side with the child pornographers. i'm not saying it doesn't exist but i think its a massively overblown issue and a catch-all 'boogeyman' for pro-censorship forces, just like the hysteria over 'snuff' films that pops up every once in awhile. while child pornography is a serious issue, internet band-aids shouldn't be a substitute for good old fashioned police work.

plus theres the simple fact is that criminals will ALWAYS find ways around whatever law you put in place and the only ones who end up affected by them are invariably the law abiding.

[cfrizz]

There also should be a substitute for parents actually being parents and MONITORING what their kids are looking at on the computer.

Everyone always trys to push their responsibility off on someone else thereby requiring everyone to pay the price by misguided over-reaching laws, for their failure to be responsible parents.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

[...] I contacted the local Police, who are very active in tracking paedophiles, and they informed me that they were aware of it, but could do nothing about it as it was located in Russia and as soon as they blacklisted it, it would change its name and ISP.

[...] Although it is difficult, I support legislation that controls ISPs limiting links to such things.

If the police can't do it, what makes you think the ISP can?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I agree with xg4bx in that the government is trying to control the net. The government stays in power because it controls business. Business now takes place on the net, so the government wants to control the net.

Actually, it's probably more accurate to say the government stays in power because business controls government (more than We The People do), not the other way 'round. Businesses want government to secure the web in order to protect their business interests, protect them from hacking and keep the tubes open.

These child porn laws are as vague as they are due to businesses not wanting to be encumbered in their business transactions by this issue... not to mention its drafters probably having no real clue how the whole tubes thing works.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Although it is difficult, I support legislation that controls ISPs limiting links to such things. We want freedom, but what we actually have is anarchy on the web. We don't need, nor should we support anarchy.

I support an opt-out plan. You call your ISP and tell them you want such sites blocked from your home. For a $50 fee, they'll block said sites. That way, only those people who want this service will have to pay for it.

[Red Alert]

As I recall from reading the Seattle Times and watching the local news casts, there was a problem with many of the ads in question for Escort Services which led to either sex slave exploitation or underage girls being exploited.

Neither of these cases, in my opinion, are good things. I see no reason children or unfortunate boys, girls, men or women should be exploited. Its just wrong.

The Seattle Attorney General's office was attempting to reduce these ads by getting the receiver of these ads to prove the person offering Escort services be of legal age. To me that in of itself is not a bad thing. I am sure there are members of our society who object to the regulation of anything. Sorry, but our society needs a framework of guidelines that is acceptable to the majority.

Anyway, there is bound to be a bumpy road to some extent while the two sides work out how it can be accomplished. Maximum prevention from exploitation of sex slave trade and minors being forced into Escort Services on the one hand and the First Amendment Protectors on the other hand concerned for any curtailment of Free Speech.

This is my opinion.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Red Alert

The Seattle Attorney General's office was attempting to reduce these ads by getting the receiver of these ads to prove the person offering Escort services be of legal age. To me that in of itself is not a bad thing. I am sure there are members of our society who object to the regulation of anything. Sorry, but our society needs a framework of guidelines that is acceptable to the majority.

Go after the escort service.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I support an opt-out plan. You call your ISP and tell them you want such sites blocked from your home. For a $50 fee, they'll block said sites. That way, only those people who want this service will have to pay for it.

I kinda like this. Would be nice to have the option, anyhow.