Doesn't matter though. The web property was taken down, and safer-ish sex work suffered a set back. Sex trafficking is the new "terrorism" whereby the government or other organizations can allege it, and the targeted entity is pretty much SOL.
It's gotten to the point where I'm skeptical of any news stories I read where authorities are claiming "sex trafficking." It's simply astounding how many of those, if you follow-up on them, end up being simple prostitution cases in the end, with the supposed victims being charged by authorities for engaging in prostitution.
The Robert Kraft case is a good recent example. Authorities made a big announcement of saying Kraft and other men were involved in a sex trafficking ring, and the media uncritically spread their claims. If you look at online comments from the time, most people assume that Kraft and others were taking advantage of unwilling sex slaves. But months later the charges against the men were dropped, and the only people that ended up being punished were the women themselves, for prostitution. Authorities have a habit of making a big deceitful announcement that they're saving these women, then when the public and media attention goes elsewhere, the women are the ones the authorities end up punishing.
https://newrepublic.com/article/123302/human-trafficking-has...
Prostitution is the oldest job in the world as they say. Only a Star Trek post scarcity economic miracle will eradicate it.
That's not always true. Illegal sex work undertaken out of desperation is destructive to the person. It is not the same as an Amazon warehouse job.
Amazon warehouse work is highly destructive. In 2019, they had an 8.8% injury rate, with 90% severe enough to interfere with work duties. The working conditions at amazon warehouses have been a national scandal for years.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-injury-rate-highest-amon...
As a gay man, while this is just anecdotal, it seems to me that the dynamics of gay prostitution are very different from most straight prostitution. I used to think it quite sad to hear about gay men paying for sex. I mean, these days, it is extremely easy for gay men to find other gay men to have sex with, for free, as long as you're willing to have sex with guys who generally look like you do.
Then I had some friends who had escorted at some point, and they explained the dynamic. Quite simply, many of the "johns" were older, and they basically wanted a hot, younger guy to have sex with them (of course there were other types, for example closeted men).
None of the guys I knew who escorted ever felt coerced into doing it, beyond the fact that they needed money, and to them it was an easy way to get money.
Of course, I'm sure there are guys who did feel pressured into doing it, and sex trafficking does occur.
But there are still many, perfectly consenting adults who pay for sex as part of "the world's oldest profession". We should stop this moral panic and focus laws to help actual victims of sex trafficking.
That is to say, much of the clientele are older men who just want a hot, younger woman to have sex with them. There are also other types.
Some female escorts do not feel coerced, while another significant percentage certainly do. I would imagine that's the same on both front as well.
While I totally recognize that male prostitutes are perhaps more likely to be able to resist physical aggression, and therefore have a bit more agency (which I think may have been the point you were leading toward), I think the moral panic crosses all borders, and I agree that once (if) we take that out of the equation, the rest of the conversation becomes much easier.
Then the women "decides" whether they have sex. At least I'm not so clear on how the second part of that secret handshake works. But it's very much a concept of paying a lot for things that are not technically sex because that would be illegal.
A lot of escorts will also take perfume, jewellery or other expensive gifts instead of money.
Just a quick google search yields this:
"It came to my attention on a recent trip to China that teahouses are now becoming the new center for scandal and prostitution. In fact, teahouses have had a mix meaning in China for centuries. Dating back as far as the Tang Dynasty teahouses were places to relax, play games and take in a traditional Chinese opera show. They were also a place where the equivalent of a geisha would cater to men by accompanying them with drinks, laughter and often-touchy behavior. Although this was seen as more of a custom to enhance customer service, it also gave customers negotiating room to ask the women for other services such as sex. Brothels were very common across China during this time and teahouses happened to be an outlet where prostitutes could also be ordered."
I believe the bp owner got into a pissing match with the AZ DA and eventually lost. Many people who hide behind the US government are scumbags.
Fuck FOSTA/SESTA too.
https://reason.com/video/2020/08/20/kamala-harris-dishonest-...
"She would go on to spread misinformation about the site and its co-founders, Michael Lacey and James Larkin, and she co-filed criminal charges that were quickly dismissed but succeeded at garnering headlines and photo ops that raised her political profile. In reality, Backpage.com had become a powerful tool for law enforcement to help catch sex traffickers because of the cooperation and commitment of the site's founders to that cause, whom Harris and many other states' attorneys general had painted as villains."
If they thought that backpage enabled/induced trafficking, then them being a top source of tips isn’t that valuable.
Would you let a drug dealer run a meth lab if he reported his customers for prosecution?
You can argue with my analogy, and I don’t quite agree with it myself, but I can see the government seeing it that way.
As I recall, the FBI did exactly that fairly recently, when they pwned some credit card trading site and ran it themselves for years.
"Playpen was a notorious darknet child pornography website that operated from August 2014 to March 2015.[1][2] The website operated through a hidden service through the Tor network which allowed users to use the website anonymously. After running the website for 6 months, the website owner Steven W. Chase was captured by the FBI. After his capture, the FBI continued to run the website for another 13 days as part of Operation Pacifier." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playpen_(website)
I don't agree with "entrapment" arguments and "faciliting spread" here. The site was already up, and the users were going to go there regardless. Running it for a week or two more is at worst marginal harm, considering it was already there for a good 6 months.
A major escort site (not BP) was ethically ran by a retired sex worker. The site sold out of fear of prosecution and the new owner is a horrible person in my opinion.
half the government wants to keep sex work illegal and doesn't really want to stop trafficking that much.
This reads oddly, since in the government context "sex trafficking" is synonymous with "prostitution".
The only reason for the government to see it that way is because someone powerful wanted them to.
NCMEC has consistently tried to impede the implementation of end-to-end encryption. Even before the Apple/iCloud debacle, the NCMEC pushed tech companies to prohibit users under 18 from using end-to-end encryption:[3]
> On February 20, 2020, NCMEC released an open letter to the technology industry outlining five Principles to Safeguard Children in End-to-End Encrypted Environments.
> - Do not implement end-to-end encrypted communications for accounts where a user has indicated they are under 18 years old.
Restricting children from secure communications is an especially user-hostile way to advocate against child abuse.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121029010231/http://www.missin...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Children%27s_Assistanc...
(Particularly interested in what actions or content is jeopardized, not the ideal of privacy, which I agree is important even for minors)
End-to-end encryption helps prevent messages from being intercepted by intermediaries, such as companies and governments. For example, an advocate (for human rights, environment, or any other cause) who is under 18 may wish to coordinate a protest or some other activity while minimizing exposure to surveillance from potential adversaries. Or in a more ordinary example, children may want to communicate with others without being profiled by advertisers or government agencies through the content of their messages. Secure communications are as valuable to children as they are to adults.
I appreciate the response in any case.
Child sex abuse may be a more severe crime than adult sex abuse, but aside from how certain crimes are sentenced, E2EE benefits children just as much as it benefits adults. Before arguing that E2EE should be unavailable for children, I would consider whether the argument holds up if E2EE were revoked for adults as well.
As a parent, I have a right to review my childs communications.
If she had been using end to end crypto, it’s likely these communications would have auto deleted.
That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message.
That’s makes parental oversight extremely difficult.
As a parent, you have the option to use parental controls to block apps with the self-destructing messages feature. However, other parents may have different parenting situations and styles that do not need this feature to be restricted from their children. Pushing for a feature to be unavailable for all children would infringe on other children's rights and their parents' rights.
> That’s the thing about end to end: it isn’t just about a stopping surveillance in real time. It auto destructs the message.
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Encryption neither enables nor prevents auto deletion of content.
A separate argument is that kids experiment and do dumb stuff together with other kids. Forcing them to not be able to do so in private without bad actors collecting images seems like a pretty significant sacrifice in human rights. I get the intention, I just think it is very misguided.
I’m reviewing her devices manually and monitoring her connections via router logs.
The two work in tandem. When I see an issue with one I check the other.
Once she shows better judgement, I’ll back off and give her more privacy. She’s very young now, and does need the supervision.
They’d still have to hack the services or obtain a warrant, neither of which a parent can do.
Just because something is true does not mean that it should be true.
> What “savory” actions for which a minor would use E2EE are you concerned are jeopardized by such a proposal?
Why does it matter whether their actions are savory or not? There are many things that reality tells us children are going to do, whether it's "savory" or not. And a lot of those things probably shouldn't be exposed to interception.
First off, who are you to tell me what I'm arguing for or against?
Second, "children" covers an EXTREMELY wide range of maturities. Some children are absolutely responsible enough to take responsibility for their actions.
Third, what on earth does that have to do with allowing anyone who feels like it to intercept their conversations?
How would it be enforced? Could minors just lie about their age? Or would you eliminate anonymity for adults?