TL;DR: EFF is against criminal liability of internet platforms for the actions of their users...specifically in this instance for a law targeting liability for sex trafficking.
To understand this position from a legal perspective it's helpful to understand mens rea, or the mental intent of the criminal.
There are all kinds of legal standards, from knowing/willful all the way down to strict liability, including between such as reckless and negligence.
Strict liability is a very rare standard in criminal law, but basically means you will be guilty of a crime regardless of your intent. The most common/famous example from law schools is statutory rape. Normally crimes require some form of intent, but in the case of statutory rape the act alone is enough to convict. The extreme hypothetical is the case of a man meeting a girl at a bar that is 21 and over. The man takes a woman home, who should be 21 based on the circumstance, but in an abundance of caution checks her ID and confirms she is 21. Turns out she committed her own crime of possessing a fake government issued ID and she is really 16, the man has no legal defense based on lack of intent (lack of knowledge, willfulness, or even recklessness or negligence). The act occurred so he is guilty.
There is another line of cases regarding "burying your head in the sand". Example, you take a package from person x who pays you $1M to deliver it to address Y. Turns out it's drugs, the common defense would be, there was no intent to possess or transport drugs, but case law holds you can't escape criminal liability by burying your head in the sand.
I think the EFFs position is a slippery slope, sure we don't want criminal liability of internet platforms where they really didn't know about sex trafficking and even would have stopped it if they had known, but we don't want platforms claiming a la Uber, we are just a tech platform if people are using our platform to break laws we aren't liable for that. Yes, platforms should be liable when they help hide and facilitate crimes, especially in the case of Uber where their business model is facilitating drivers in illegally operating as taxis or rides for hire (as they do/did in many jurisdictions).
Disagreed completely. In my view it is enough for a platform to comply with legitimate requests for information from LE and have a team that handles user-generated reports of illegal/rule breaking activity that occurs on the platform. Anything more is placing an undue burden on these companies and either making some technologies dangerous to use/invest in (bitcoin can be used to sell drugs) or barring small companies from particular business opportunities because they would require too much monitoring overhead.
Let's trust the laws that already exist to handle things that have been illegal for a long time.
>Let's trust the laws that already exist to handle things that have been illegal for a long time.
So in other words I can create an Uber for murder for hire, and I'll connect people who want someone dead and people who will do the job; ill process the payment and take a cut. If the two conspirators get caught fine, let the laws that exist work it out...but I escape any liability "because I'm just a tech platform". All I have to do is respond to LE subpoenas during the murder investigation, that's what you are suggesting.
Don't get me wrong I agree with points about bitcoin, that it serves as a legit technology and shouldn't be outlawed because it might be used for illegal transactions, but the arguement is not that "banks already engage in money laundering for drug dealers and other illegal businesses, and at worst they pay fines, no one has gone to jail; therefore, bitcoin should remain unregulated so even one else can engage in money laundering".
I know it's extreme,but no there is no law about a murder for hire tech platform, just laws against various types of murder, all distinguished by the criminal intent.
It's like saying many jurisdiction had laws against unlicensed taxis and illegal rides for hire, and we know Uber willfully operated in those jurisdictions...drivers have been arrested and fined, but nothing happened to Uber.
So using real world examples, yes I would like to see platforms be liable where they knowingly and willfully operate to break the law. If people could interpret that reasonably, they would understand I'm not suggesting what is obviously being interpreted or projected onto my comments.
> I know it's extreme,but no there is no law about a murder for hire tech platform, just laws against various types of murder, all distinguished by the criminal intent.
Your example is hyperbolic and inane. An "Uber for contract killing" is already illegal under existing law and such a service would quickly get shut down.
Similarly we already have regulations for malicious software and I consider everything else akin to an instrument like a hammer. Just because a hammer can be used to hurt someone doesn't mean we should ban all hammers or require special "hammer licenses" to own one.
Another example besides bitcoin is tech like TOR. Some use it to buy drugs; others to evade dictatorial regimes.
Not at all. The point is there are different standards, and it's not just no liability or strict liability as EFF is framing it.
You can set the standard as a middle ground, such as the web company knew or should have known their technology was being used to facilitate crimes (we are talking about specific crimes, not generally). I only used strict liability to highlight the most extreme counter example to EFF's position of no liability.
Again, try applying your logic to the real world example I give.
Take Uber in Florida. Many counties they operated (knowingly/willfully) illegally. They recruited drivers from counties where it was legal to counties it was illegal, paying bonuses to drivers to get them to comply. They ran software that would cancel rides if it determined: a. It was a LE operation; or b. The driver was working with LE. Uber created training materials to avoid LE in counties drivers were operating illegally and distributed them to said drivers (everything from have passengers sit up front, take your Uber phone down, etc...). Driver caught breaking the law more than twice are terminated.
Millions in fines to drivers, cars impounded, drivers arrested and charged criminally...but nothing happened to Uber, how is that a middle ground?
You are forgetting another important factor: not all laws are just or make sense in the current year. Less than a generation ago we had laws that oppressed black and gay people. I doubt you or anyone would defend these laws now just because they happened to have been ratified laws.
Non government entities oppose or try to influence existing laws in many ways and for many reasons. Some examples are BLM, congressional lobbying, and what Uber has done. Uber's fight is, of course, strictly for their bottom line, but the general principle of non government entities making change through non legislative channels applies.
Finally, you have to consider public opinion. Uber has had plenty of opposition, but I would say that, by and large, the public supports them because they provide a useful service. Your proposed "murder for hire platform" is both already illegal and would meet staunch public opposition.
If SESTA passes we will not only potentially criminalize many software projects, but also make some markets impossible to enter without a sizable amount of cash (ex: web hosting).
So in conclusion, in direction contrast to what you claim through the thread...There is no middle ground currently. 1 tech company can facilitate breaking the law; leave a wake of fines and criminal records of their contractors, and they aren't liable.
And that's the status quo everyone seems to be accepting because god forbid a startup needs more cash to compete in order to comply with laws.
I have no specific knowledge about anything in Florida or anything to do with Uber and no way to check the accuracy of your accusations but may I ask if lack of action against service providers in such cases is because there were no laws to be broken or because decisions have been taken not to press charges or because more evidence is needed?
I'm curious how payment processors and banks could ever hope to not be deemed to benefit from any enterprise busted under this law. It seems clear they would be involved in every single one, and would materially benefit. Since the law specifically removes the whole 'you have to be aware of what you are benefitting from' part, it seems like they would be sitting ducks.
17 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 70.8 ms ] threadTo understand this position from a legal perspective it's helpful to understand mens rea, or the mental intent of the criminal.
There are all kinds of legal standards, from knowing/willful all the way down to strict liability, including between such as reckless and negligence.
Strict liability is a very rare standard in criminal law, but basically means you will be guilty of a crime regardless of your intent. The most common/famous example from law schools is statutory rape. Normally crimes require some form of intent, but in the case of statutory rape the act alone is enough to convict. The extreme hypothetical is the case of a man meeting a girl at a bar that is 21 and over. The man takes a woman home, who should be 21 based on the circumstance, but in an abundance of caution checks her ID and confirms she is 21. Turns out she committed her own crime of possessing a fake government issued ID and she is really 16, the man has no legal defense based on lack of intent (lack of knowledge, willfulness, or even recklessness or negligence). The act occurred so he is guilty.
There is another line of cases regarding "burying your head in the sand". Example, you take a package from person x who pays you $1M to deliver it to address Y. Turns out it's drugs, the common defense would be, there was no intent to possess or transport drugs, but case law holds you can't escape criminal liability by burying your head in the sand.
I think the EFFs position is a slippery slope, sure we don't want criminal liability of internet platforms where they really didn't know about sex trafficking and even would have stopped it if they had known, but we don't want platforms claiming a la Uber, we are just a tech platform if people are using our platform to break laws we aren't liable for that. Yes, platforms should be liable when they help hide and facilitate crimes, especially in the case of Uber where their business model is facilitating drivers in illegally operating as taxis or rides for hire (as they do/did in many jurisdictions).
Let's trust the laws that already exist to handle things that have been illegal for a long time.
So in other words I can create an Uber for murder for hire, and I'll connect people who want someone dead and people who will do the job; ill process the payment and take a cut. If the two conspirators get caught fine, let the laws that exist work it out...but I escape any liability "because I'm just a tech platform". All I have to do is respond to LE subpoenas during the murder investigation, that's what you are suggesting.
Don't get me wrong I agree with points about bitcoin, that it serves as a legit technology and shouldn't be outlawed because it might be used for illegal transactions, but the arguement is not that "banks already engage in money laundering for drug dealers and other illegal businesses, and at worst they pay fines, no one has gone to jail; therefore, bitcoin should remain unregulated so even one else can engage in money laundering".
It's like saying many jurisdiction had laws against unlicensed taxis and illegal rides for hire, and we know Uber willfully operated in those jurisdictions...drivers have been arrested and fined, but nothing happened to Uber.
So using real world examples, yes I would like to see platforms be liable where they knowingly and willfully operate to break the law. If people could interpret that reasonably, they would understand I'm not suggesting what is obviously being interpreted or projected onto my comments.
Rico?
Similarly we already have regulations for malicious software and I consider everything else akin to an instrument like a hammer. Just because a hammer can be used to hurt someone doesn't mean we should ban all hammers or require special "hammer licenses" to own one.
Another example besides bitcoin is tech like TOR. Some use it to buy drugs; others to evade dictatorial regimes.
You can set the standard as a middle ground, such as the web company knew or should have known their technology was being used to facilitate crimes (we are talking about specific crimes, not generally). I only used strict liability to highlight the most extreme counter example to EFF's position of no liability.
Take Uber in Florida. Many counties they operated (knowingly/willfully) illegally. They recruited drivers from counties where it was legal to counties it was illegal, paying bonuses to drivers to get them to comply. They ran software that would cancel rides if it determined: a. It was a LE operation; or b. The driver was working with LE. Uber created training materials to avoid LE in counties drivers were operating illegally and distributed them to said drivers (everything from have passengers sit up front, take your Uber phone down, etc...). Driver caught breaking the law more than twice are terminated.
Millions in fines to drivers, cars impounded, drivers arrested and charged criminally...but nothing happened to Uber, how is that a middle ground?
Non government entities oppose or try to influence existing laws in many ways and for many reasons. Some examples are BLM, congressional lobbying, and what Uber has done. Uber's fight is, of course, strictly for their bottom line, but the general principle of non government entities making change through non legislative channels applies.
Finally, you have to consider public opinion. Uber has had plenty of opposition, but I would say that, by and large, the public supports them because they provide a useful service. Your proposed "murder for hire platform" is both already illegal and would meet staunch public opposition.
If SESTA passes we will not only potentially criminalize many software projects, but also make some markets impossible to enter without a sizable amount of cash (ex: web hosting).
And that's the status quo everyone seems to be accepting because god forbid a startup needs more cash to compete in order to comply with laws.
https://edri.org/leaked-document-eu-presidency-calls-for-mas...