The Well-Meaning ‘Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act’ Could Be A Trojan Horse

It’s hard for me to argue about a proposed law called Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. After all, I’m co-founder and CEO of ConnectSafely.org, an internet safety group, and have been active in child protection organizations for decades. But this proposed law, which has the support of several prominent Republican and Democratic senators, may have some unintended consequences both for tech companies and the very people the bill hopes to protect.

Read more

Additional article from Slate.com

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I thought this was an important quote from the article:

As I understand the bill, ignorance of an offense is an excuse (and that makes sense since it would be nearly impossible for a company to have knowledge of every single abuse on its service), so the incentive would be to dumb down some of their existing reporting features and efforts to find illegal content. My fear is that, if this bill is passed, they may opt to limit their use of some of these technologies as a way of complying with that law. If that sounds implausible, consider how many companies deal with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act that makes it illegal for them to knowingly collect personal information from children under 13. While some companies do ask for date of birth and deny access to those under 13, there are many companies that simply don’t ask so that they can remain compliant by simply not knowing.

Shouldn’t this apply to those entities that actually print too, e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc? They are just as culpable. This could be medium neutral and just broad brush apply to anything anyone reads that is distributed by anyone, anytime. Ethically and morally, there is a need for these entities to do something, but legally like this law? No. They can chose to not post/print things if they feel it is against their T&Cs.

This is the driver of a car needs to know who is wearing a seatbelt and who is not because the driver is responsible and liable in the end for everyone in the car, just like a taxi driver/train engineer/bus driver/pilot/boat captain is for their crew and passengers/cargo.

This is a slippery slope that really should be addressed more carefully in greater forums of debate and discussion. None of this midnight passing without these things like IML was passed in the dead of the night in similar fashion.