Difference between revisions of "Internal:Public Policy/Reducing online harassment"

From Wikimedia District of Columbia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Draft news release: inching toward formulating text of press release)
(→‎Pre-2018 discussion: spell out unclear abbr)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
* read the draft law {{aye}} (done by Peter) Peter will compare IPPA bill to Enough Bill. {{aye}} Done -- after some comparison, can't find any SUBSTANTIVE difference. There's a lot of text changing, especially because now there is a long section of definitions in the front. The one-paragraph abstract, or summary, of the new Enough Act, is identical to the previously proposed IPPA.
  
* read the draft law {{aye}} (done by Peter) Peter will compare IPPA bill to Enough Bill. {{aye}} Done -- after some comparison, can't find any SUBSTANTIVE difference. There's a lot of text changing, especially because now there is a long section of definitions in the front. The one-paragraph abstract, or summary, of the new Enough Act, is identical to the previously proposed IPPA.
 
* consult with WMF public policy -- Done {{aye}} with nice msg from Jan Gerlach
  
* consult with WMF public policy -- Done {{aye}} with nice msg from Jan Gerlach
−
* let's not take the time to consult with TLM, EFF, WM NY, Newyorkbrad, or other partner orgs, because it takes too much time
 +
* let's not take the time to consult with Tech Lady Mafia, EFF, WM NY, Newyorkbrad, or other partner orgs, because it takes too much time
   
 
* we discuss '''extraterritoriality''' -- a US person using a server outside the US is still committing a crime if they use that server to host such inappropriate intimate pix. see page 6, paragraph (f). Good.
  
* we discuss '''extraterritoriality''' -- a US person using a server outside the US is still committing a crime if they use that server to host such inappropriate intimate pix. see page 6, paragraph (f). Good.

Revision as of 23:33, 18 February 2018

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.[1] 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:

Draft news release

Peter envisions several paragraphs, adding up to a page:

  • We support the creation of the new legal offense because this behavior is toxic and intimidating and harrassment. It drives away participants in creating our knowledge pool, our service to the public. It is therefore relevant to Wikimedia. It's used to humiliate and silence participants.
  • Comment on tradeoff: (1) we know it's a constraint on free expression.
  • Tradeoff (2) we know it puts a little risk on the platform. Protections for platforms comes from section 230 o the communications decency act, aka the "safe harbor provision". we think the protection is sufficient. if the platform is accused of misbehavior, we can eliminate the offending content, fight the action in court, or support changes to the law. we do not anticipate this; rather . 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 Green tickY (done by Peter) Peter will compare IPPA bill to Enough Bill. Green tickY Done -- after some comparison, can't find any SUBSTANTIVE difference. There's a lot of text changing, especially because now there is a long section of definitions in the front. The one-paragraph abstract, or summary, of the new Enough Act, is identical to the previously proposed IPPA.
  • consult with WMF public policy -- Done Green tickY with nice msg from Jan Gerlach
  • let's not take the time to consult with Tech Lady Mafia, EFF, WM NY, Newyorkbrad, or other partner orgs, because it takes too much time
  • we discuss extraterritoriality -- a US person using a server outside the US is still committing a crime if they use that server to host such inappropriate intimate pix. see page 6, paragraph (f). Good.

References

  1. ↑ List of supporters of the Enough Act, at Sen. Harris's site
Retrieved from "https://wikimediadc.org/index.php?title=Internal:Public_Policy/Reducing_online_harassment&oldid=12514"