Activist groups file complaint that YouTube has violated COPPA

Some activist groups have claimed that YouTube is collecting data from users under 13, putatively in violation of the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, as in this CNN story. The CNN story reports that the YouTube may be picking up both minors’ and parents’ data when children sign on. 

  

Over 20 groups have filed a complaint with the FTC.  The story maintains that the groups want YouTube to be able to distinguish kids’ data from parents’.

  

In December, CNN had reported that YouTube would hire 10000 people to “clean up YouTube”.

Some states want to put mandatory filters on all Internet devices sold in their states with a registry of those who unblock; Hollywood seems to up threats on all user content

Wired has an important story on states considering their own variations of the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act (HTCEPA), by requiring every device sold in their states to have porn filters!  Right now, the dishonor roll includes Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas. Similar bills are considered in the UK.  (I couldn't find this act in Wikipedia.) 

  

Users could pay a fee to remove the filters but then the states would have a registry of users who had.

  

Wired's story,  by Louise Matsakis on this, where she traces the laws back to the original Communications Decency Act of 1996, largely overturned; and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which has been the main subject of this particular blog.  The filter issue came up in the COPA litigation, particularly at the trial I covered here in 2006.

Ironically it is Section 230 of the original 1996 law that survived and that is now threatened by FOSTA and SESTA as covered here before.  This article mentions these, and notes the lack of distinction between consensual adult sex and trafficking (which often involves minors).  The article’s comments on these are a little overbroad (it’s more than “social media sites” though).

  

Recently, Congress has gotten some letters actually supportive of SESTA/FOSTA from Hollywood (Fox) and some parts of Tech (Oracle).  I’ll get into these again, but there is a disturbing undertone to these letters:  there is no reason users should be able to post to the whole planet at will without gatekeepers unless they give something back (like help fight trafficking, or volunteer in some intersectional way).  That really isn’t what Senator Portman thinks SESTA says; he still says it is narrow.

Legally dangerous tweet from Uganda circulating; (don't forward it)

A few weeks ago WJLA7 warned viewers about a child pornography video circulating on Facebook, and that it could be a crime to share it.  The video has surely been removed.

But today I saw in my Twitter feed a post whose title seemed to hint at c.p. filmed in Uganda.  The image in the video showed minimal dress but no nudity.  I simply ignored it as it passed out of sight, but I realized I could have (with a little more presence of mind) reported it and unfollowed the sender. 

Presumably it could be a crime to retweet such a post.  Just a warning or a tip. 

I don’t recall that this has happened in own input feed before.  Let’s hope someone reports it and that Twitter gets rid of it quickly. 

Geek Squad appears to be working undercover with FBI in a cozy relationship at a repair center to nab child pornography possession

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a disturbing article by Aaron Mackey, reports that there was more collusion between a Geek Squad repair center in Kentucky and the FBI looking for child pornography, than had been thought.

Some employees seem to have gone out of the way to look for images in unallocated space, that the customer thought had been deleted.

There are tools that can detect digital watermarks from known images identified by NCMEC. But it is hard to imagine how one could find a “needle in a haystack” otherwise.

It would sound plausible to do this also with sex trafficking in the future (related to the FOSRA-SESTA debate).

  

In August 2014, I had a large Toshiba laptop crash with a burned out motherboard from overheating when trying to upgrade from Windows 8.0 to 8.1, as repeatedly prompted by Microsoft.  The computer was sent to the repair center and was there for six weeks before we gave up on it (the store said “Tennessee”).  I had to replace it and apply the service plan warranty to that replacement.

Update: March 11

A further report on admissions of payments to GS members.  

The question of porn, pirated and placed out of context -- reminds me of the COPA trial in 2007

Stoya has an op-ed in the New York Times Monday, March 5, 2018, p. A27, “Can there be good porn?”

  

She discusses how adult content needs to be put in context – a discussion that I remember well from the COPA litigation of more than a decade ago. But then it gets pirated, she says, out of context, posted “for free” on YouTube, and discovered by kids out of context.

  

But even when found in its original location, many people will not bother to read the context.

FOSTA passage and the "should have known" standard

Note well the Wall Street Journal editorial “Political Sex-Trafficking Exploitation”, with the byline “Fast moving legislation could open the web to a lawsuit bonanza, link. 

  

  

WSJ admits that Backpage should have been prosecuted under existing law, which really does exempt criminal activity by websites or service providers that they know about from downstream liability protection. A judge In Boston will let another case go forward.

  

But all the rub is with the “should have known” idea, already put forth by EFF.

Update: March 22

Senate has passed FOSTA unchanged and the president has signed.  See my BillBoushka blog today. 

House passes sex trafficking bill reducing downstream liability protections under Section 230 (Backpage case)

The House late Tuesday passed the “FOSTA” bill, HR 1865, based on the problems with sex-trafficking on the web.

The Wall Street Journal has the best account right now, by John D. McKinnon.  I have links to other accounts on my main blog, as well as on Wordpress where there are many more details. 

The bill seems to have been amended at the last minute to narrow the Section 230 exemptions of services (websites, social media sites, and possibly hosting companies – the last is not clear) when their users engage in promoting large scale prostitution or any sex trafficking.  What is unclear is what the legal standard would be how a service would know that this is going on because it cannot prescreen all content.  Congress obviously believes it is targeting “classified ads” sites known for selling sex ads.  There is some question as to what the “reckless disregard” language means.