Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-porn law

[Jamdoc]

“For $30 and a few clicks, any child can have a box of 20 rounds of .223 rifle ammunition delivered to their doorstep within days.

That’s what Everytown for Gun Safety found when it sent people undercover recently to test federal laws prohibiting ammo sales to minors by ordering rifle rounds from seven top e-commerce retailers.

Age verification amounted to checkboxes and requirements buried in the sites’ terms of service. None required purchasers to upload an identification or have an adult sign for delivery.

Everytown surveyed well-known sites such as Brownells and Guns.com as well as bulk ammo warehouses with more opaque ownership, such as Florida-based BHAmmo.com.

Under federal law, you have to be 18 to buy rifle and shotgun ammunition and 21 for handgun ammo. But the law doesn’t prescribe how sellers must verify age; it holds them in violation of the statute only if they “know or have reasonable cause to believe the purchaser of the ammunition is a juvenile.” Underage buyers would not technically be breaking the law until they receive the ammo.”

Age verification to buy alcohol, but not rifle ammo? How kids can get access in a few clicks

A new undercover action by Everytown for Gun Safety exposed a lack of age verification on popular ammo retailers online.

www.usatoday.com

Ironically, states that require in-person or age verification on websites selling ammo to residence were taken to court for the legislation, calling it unfair and discriminatory.

So, you’re excited about a verification step for porn that was deemed unfair for gun and ammo access.

Moving goalposts.

The ammo doesn't just jump out and kill someone.

 

[zippy2006]

I mean for most of human existence if you went somewhere to do something, people could see you and see that it is you.

I think this is key, namely that the internet should not be some sort of alternative reality, utterly divorced from "real life." This is why I think Thomas' argument has so much force:

Here is a central argument from Thomas that no one has addressed:

• If online age verification is unconstitutional, then in-person age verification is unconstitutional
• In-person age verification is not unconstitutional
• Therefore, online age verification is not unconstitutional

The presupposition here is that the internet is not a magical land, divorced from reality. Unfortunately internet has in many ways become a magical land, divorced from reality. I think it's high time we started fixing that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I wonder how the FBI managed to shut down Z-Lib? You're not living in reality.

They didn't "shut it down".

Z-lib is still up and running on the dark web (as well as under several alternate domains)


You're talking about reality...the reality is there are tens of thousands of illegal porn sites and illegal drug trade sites running on the dark web (and some on the surface web), and even taking a down a single one of them costs vast amounts of treasure and investigatory manpower from high level agencies.

The ones not living in reality are the ones who don't realize they're embarking on a fool's errand of playing a billion dollar game of whack-a-mole, and thinking they'll make even the slightest noticeable dent in the problem.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes, and it possible to disapprove of the bill without disagreeing with the decision. Hardly anyone here is talking about the decision.

Because the ruling was fair, This is not a constitutional infringement, this is a situation of infrastructure and the wording of the law I mean there's still lawsuit that they could press on this regarding having permanent records of vulnerable government issued personal data being stored online in an insecure manner, and if there's a major data breach of these sites where people have had social security numbers and drivers license data stolen and fraud committed in people's names the end users who got their data hacked in the breach will sue the sites, and it'll end up involving the government since the government required the sites taking that information.
But it's not a violation of free speech, so as far as the Supreme Court's involvement they'd uphold the laws because the problem isn't constitutional UNLESS you can argue for an implied right to privacy, or, ratify a constitutional amendment for a right to privacy. Then of course, government issued ID's couldn't be stored online since that violates people's privacy and that would be a constitutional infringement.

But it does not violate free speech, the pornographers are allowed to publish all of their "speech" online, just who is allowed to see that content is restricted, as it always has been by statute anyway.

Now if I were a lawyer in a state with one of these laws that does have a constitutional right to privacy, like say Montana.. There's a lawsuit there that can get that state's law thrown out, or at least revised to where it doesn't violate privacy.

 

[zippy2006]

They didn't "shut it down".

Z-lib is still up and running on the dark web (as well as under several alternate domains)

You're moving the goalposts again. "They didn't shut it down because shutting down the servers and the domain doesn't count if the content gets transported and hosted elsewhere." The point here is that your strange idea that the U.S. never acts outside its borders is clearly false.

What will inevitably happen is that there will be treaties which involve internet regulation, where countries will collectively address things such as sex trafficking or child pornography, to begin with.

 

[zippy2006]

But it's not a violation of free speech

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're moving the goalposts again. "They didn't shut it down because shutting down the servers and the domain doesn't count if the content gets transported and hosted elsewhere."

That's not moving the goalposts, that's the nature of the problem... it doesn't count if they didn't actually nuke the content and prevent future access to it.

If fictitious site "Adult video empire" gets "taken down", but all of that exact same content merely pops up on a new address "Empire of Adult Videos" tomorrow, and all of the same people can easily locate it, then the effort failed and they didn't really shutdown anything, they just forced a change of address.

It is the content itself that's the point of concern right? Not the specific URL being used.

 

[zippy2006]

You're talking about reality...the reality is there are tens of thousands of illegal porn sites and illegal drug trade sites running on the dark web (and some on the surface web), and even taking a down a single one of them costs vast amounts of treasure and investigatory manpower from high level agencies.

You continue to misrepresent the the intention. This is the first step. Eventually there will be international treaties where countries join together to crack down on illegal internet activity, such as child pornography. Laws and decisions like this one are the first steps towards that eventuality, and that eventuality is impossible if laws and decisions like this never occur.

"THIS DIDN'T SOLVE THE WHOLE PROBLEM IN ONE FELL SWOOP!," is not a real argument. No one thought it would. It helped address the problem and it progressed the cause in a necessary way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think this is key, namely that the internet should not be some sort of alternative reality, utterly divorced from "real life." This is why I think Thomas' argument has so much force:


The presupposition here is that the internet is not a magical land, divorced from reality. Unfortunately internet has in many ways become a magical land, divorced from reality. I think it's high time we started fixing that.

On a general level, I agree with all you're saying here, brother Zippy, but I doubt these laws will fix what's really needed. All these ongoing additions to do is add an operative legal contingency to an already, long-time morally crippled society. The damage has been already done, and now they're trying to do legal triage.

These laws are like adding a band-aid to a 90 year old man's severed arm, one that was severed in his youth decades ago. Big help that is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's not moving the goalposts, that's the nature of the problem... it doesn't count if they didn't actually nuke the content and prevent future access to it.

If fictitious site "Adult video empire" gets "taken down", but all of that exact same content merely pops up on a new address "Empire of Adult Videos" tomorrow, and all of the same people can easily locate it, then the effort failed and they didn't really shutdown anything, they just forced a change of address.

It is the content itself that's the point of concern right? Not the specific URL being used.

Actually, it's the producers who are the central concern. Them, along with their profligate business sense philosophies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"THIS DIDN'T SOLVE THE WHOLE PROBLEM IN ONE FELL SWOOP!," is not a real argument. No one thought it would. It helped address the problem and it progressed the cause in a necessary way.

No, that's not the argument I'm making...

I'm saying that you could make as many "swoops" as you wanted, and you won't reduce the amount of it.

Data is easily copyable, duplicatable, and portable.

In that sense, there isn't some tangible finite amount you can go after and eventually say "we got it all"

If I hosted a website that had something nefarious on it, in the time it would take them to find it, find a way to seize it, and destroy the hosted files on that one particular server, I could have it up in 20 new places from backups with a few button clicks.

That's why I described as a billion dollar game of whack-a-mole.

The FBI could do 200 site takedowns a day, every day, for the next 100 years, and those exact same sites (just with a new address) will keep popping back up in short order.

 

[zippy2006]

If I hosted a website that had something nefarious on it, in the time it would take them to find it, find a way to seize it, and destroy the hosted files on that one particular server, I could have it up in 20 new places from backups with a few button clicks.

I guess you just don't understand how things work. You don't understand liability. You don't understand how hard it is to anonymously host a domain, especially when you're up against arms of nation-states like the FBI. You don't understand how an international treaty would work. You don't understand the requirements of ISPs to enforce laws. You don't understand that those who run VPNs also have liability risks and legal risks. You seem to imagine that this is some sort of game, where those who break laws have no risk of imprisonment, fines, monitoring/prohition, etc. Such a mindset of consequencelessness is a direct fruit of the internet age. Maybe give Julian Assange a call and have him fill you in on a few things.

In other words, you're a libertarian who hasn't really thought through politics or law in any meaningful way.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I guess you just don't understand how things work. You don't understand liability. You don't understand how hard it is to anonymously host a domain, especially when you're up against arms of nation-states like the FBI. You don't understand how an international treaty would work. You don't understand the requirements of ISPs to enforce laws. You don't understand that those who run VPNs also have liability risks and legal risks. You seem to imagine that this is some sort of game, where those who break laws have no risk of imprisonment, fines, monitoring/prohition, etc. Such a mindset of consequencelessness is a direct fruit of the internet age.

In other words, you're a libertarian who hasn't really thought through politics or law in any meaningful way.

Ah yes, as someone with 20 years experience in the software/infosec world (8 those those being in a principal role for company that has clients ranging from fortune 500 companies to government entities), I just don't understand how tech stuff works.

 

[zippy2006]

Ah yes, as someone with 20 years experience in the software/infosec world (8 those those being in a principal role for company that has clients ranging from fortune 500 companies to government entities), I just don't understand how tech stuff works.

Read again. "Politics or law." Try to write at least one post where you don't radically misinterpret what was said.

 

[zippy2006]

@ThatRobGuy is clearly against speed limits:

It'd be like trying to solve the problem of people speeding in their cars.

We've already made the cars that go well over 65mph
Cars are so ubiquitous that it's impossible to track everyone at once
We've developed tech that alerts people to where the cops are hiding

Now, how do we stop people from going over 65mph?


The answer: Short of some measures that would be a serious invasion of privacy (or downright totalitarian), the best that can be hoped for is limited enforcement where a best case scenario is they catch it 1 out of every 10,000 instances (if they're lucky)

So are you against speed limits, too?

No

Why not? Your post makes it sound like you are.

If you want to start thinking seriously about politics and law, then figure out how in the world you are not against speed limits. You wrote a number of posts arguing against this law, then you compared the law to a law against speed limits and gave arguments against speed limits, and then you magically claimed that you are not against speed limits. All evidence points to the idea that you are against speed limits.

This sort of thing is why I am having such a hard time taking you seriously.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Read again. "Politics or law." Try to write at least one post where you don't radically misinterpret what was said.

I've written several posts explaining the practical, technical, and legal challenges, and then you immediately toss out the accusation of "goalpost moving" or try to inject some sort of jab about me being a naive libertarian.


The reality is the goalposts were already way far out there, you seemed to think that they were a lot closer.

You don't understand how hard it is to anonymously host a domain, especially when you're up against arms of nation-states like the FBI.

Not hard at all...

35% of the worlds websites make use of WHOIS identity masking services
An estimated 20% of the world's websites have WHOIS data containing missing or deliberately false information.
10% make use of "Bulletproof Hosting", which means they specifically work with don't ask/don't tell foreign offshore hosting companies that ignore law enforcement requests

In essence, there are fewer sites that aren't anonymous than ones that are

You don't understand how an international treaty would work.

It wouldn't work... they've tried to put some in place (like the Budapest Convention), it only has 70 signatories.

It was largely ineffective due to some big names missing from the signatory list, and what little efficacy it did have was basically neutered post-GDPR.

You don't understand the requirements of ISPs to enforce laws.

I'm actually very aware of the legal obligations of ISPs.

You don't understand that those who run VPNs also have liability risks and legal risks.

They're subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they reside, which, in many cases, are in countries where such matters are the wild west.

You seem to imagine that this is some sort of game, where those who break laws have no risk of imprisonment, fines, monitoring/prohition, etc. Such a mindset of consequencelessness is a direct fruit of the internet age. Maybe give Julian Assange a call and have him fill you in on a few things.

For every Julian Assange they catch or Silk Road they take down, there's thousands of others they don't.

 

[zippy2006]

You don't understand how hard it is to anonymously host a domain, especially when you're up against arms of nation-states like the FBI.

Not hard at all...

35% of the worlds websites make use of WHOIS identity masking services
An estimated 20% of the world's websites have WHOIS data containing missing or deliberately false information.
10% make use of "Bulletproof Hosting", which means they specifically work with don't ask/don't tell foreign offshore hosting companies that ignore law enforcement requests

Cute. This is like holding up plastic wrap to protect yourself from bullets. The FBI has never made it past the 'ole WHOIS masking services.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Cute. This is like holding up plastic wrap to protect yourself from bullets. The FBI has never made it past the 'ole WHOIS masking services.

Unless it's domain registrar or proxy provider that's US-based, or in a country with reciprocal agreements with the US, then there's little the FBI can do.


Point of reference, were you familiar with Safe-Inet?

It took 7 years for the combined governments of Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, France, and the US to be able to take just that one provider down.

It involved 200+ support personnel, 40 full time digital forensics experts, 20 undercover operatives, and a dozen international liaisons. ...and 8 million dollars of operational expenses (not including the salaries of the aforementioned personnel over those 7 years)

7 new similar providers popped up in the time they were taking that one down (to add to the hundreds that were still out there, untouched)


Do you honestly think cybercrime would exist to the scale it does if shutting those kinds of operations down was as easy as the FBI or Europol making a quick phone call to a domain registrar or off-shored VPN provider and asking them for info?


So the question is, how much time, tax money, and human resources are you willing to dedicate to the "trying to force porn sites to do ID verification and taking down international ones that refuse to comply" crusade in the environment of "in the time it takes to bust one for non-compliance, 10 new ones pop up"?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Moving goalposts.

The ammo doesn't just jump out and kill someone.

Which brings me back to my original point:

Guns kill people and viewing porn does not, yet somehow limiting access to porn to “keep kids safe” is applauded, but limiting access to guns to keep kids safe is an unreasonable and offensive thing to ask.

The morality police’s double standards are fun.

 

[zippy2006]

@ThatRobGuy if you're not just throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks, then finally explain to us why you are not against speed limits.