Internal:Public Policy/Reducing online harassment

UPDATE 31 Dec 2017: There is an new bill called the Enough Act. It has sponsors from both parties and both Houses of Congress. The text looks similar to the earlier version (then called IPPA) discussed below. Our speaker and likely ally Danielle Citron supports it, and so does Facebook. WMF hasn't commented. Possibly one reason for broad speedy support is that Rep Joe Barton just got stung by a version of this. Peter's read it. It looks very safe to support it.

Sources:

• Text of the Enough Act, at Sen. Harris site, 31 Dec 2017
• https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sens-harris-burr-klobuchar-and-rep-speier-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-protect-against-online-exploitation-of-private-images
• http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article186853463.html
• https://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2017/11/28/bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers-targets-revenge-porn-online-n2415332
• http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article186853453.html
• Background: Revenge porn laws by state, at findlaw.com
• more background: http://whqr.org/post/01152018-should-posting-revenge-porn-be-federal-crime#stream/0

Draft news release

Peter envisions several paragraphs, adding up to a page or two: Say we support it, explain the issue 's relevance to Wikimedia briefly, say it's a constructive step, comment on tradeoffs of online privacy with (a) free expression, and (b) protections for platforms. Note that prosecutors will need to show reasonable judgment, which we expect, and if we don't see that we'll support changes.

Pre-2018 discussion

• Our chapter could publicly support the w:Intimate Privacy Protection Act
• Text of the draft law (4 pages, clear to read)
• The proposed law forbids sharing sexually intimate images of identifiable persons with reckless disregard for their lack of consent. It does not forbid the use of such images in reports to law enforcement, the courts, corrections officers, intelligence services or in other cases of (unspecified) public interest (e.g. I suppose reports of a public health problem). Definition of "sexually explicit" is inherited from existing laws. "Reckless" will be interpreted by prosecutors. Interactive computer platform providers (e.g. WMF or Facebook) are not considered violators of the law if a user uploaded something reckless, unless the platform explicitly invites such content.
• Background: Motherboard/Vice article showing that google got the drafters of the law to add protections for platform providers (like WMF). It's quite interesting to read. Note that the ACLU does not favor the draft law, apparently because it imposes on free speech.
• Peter's judgment: The proposed law makes sense, and the risks of passing it are less than the risks left open by not-passing it. The law has appropriate limits. If enforcement seems to go awry, we would support changing it but that seems unlikely.

Steps before support

• read the draft law Y (done by Peter) Peter will compare IPPA bill to Enough Bill exactly.
• consult with WMF public policy; let's not take the time to consult with TLM, EFF, WM NY, Newyorkbrad, or other partner orgs, because it takes too much time