Legislators Want To Open Up Wiretap Laws To Target Sex Workers And Their Customers
from the ongoing-holy-war dept
Under the guise of fighting sex trafficking, legislators have been offering up a slew of bills that will make things much worse for plenty of people not involved in this heinous crime. Elizabeth Nolan Brown, who is the go-to expert on all sorts of government abuse done in the name of sex-trafficked children, has tallied up the current stack of legislative paperwork floating around the halls of Congress. Spoiler alert: it's a lot.
So far this year, federal lawmakers have introduced more than 30 bills related to "sex trafficking," which many in government now define to mean all prostitution. This week alone brought three new efforts. And following the familiar pattern of the drug war, these measures mostly focus on giving federal law enforcement more "tools" to find, prosecute, and punish people for actions only tangentially, if at all, connected to causing harm.
Currently, the forerunner for "worst" is one that makes a mockery of federal wiretap statutes. The laws governing government eavesdropping have been modified over the years with an eye on protecting something even more sacrosanct than someone's home: someone's private conversations. Wiretaps are only supposed to be used for felonies -- dangerous, possibly life-threatening criminal activities. They're supposed to be issued only when law enforcement has exhausted all other options and subjected to strict oversight to prevent their abuse. (Note: what's supposed to happen and what actually happens are two very different things.)
What they're not supposed to be used for is small-time stuff -- misdemeanors and other low-level, non-dangerous crimes. But that's exactly what legislators are hoping to do: expand wiretap authority to cover the consensual exchange of money for services.
One such measure would expand state and local government authority "to seek wiretap warrants in sexual exploitation and prostitution cases" (emphasis mine) and mandate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Justice conduct a "study on the long-term physical and psychological effects of the commercial sex trade." It would also give the Department of Homeland Security a mandate to develop protocols "for implementation across federal, state, and local law enforcement" on how to screen people "suspected of engaging in commercial sex acts" for the possibility that they have been trafficked. The screening process would also be applied to people suspected of working in violation of any labor regulations, including occupational licensing rules.
Combine this new authority with government officials' natural tendency to name-and-shame anyone involved with consensual sex work and you've got a whole can of wiretapped worms just waiting to be exploited for maximum public damage. Add to that the underlying assertion that sex work is some sort of illness that must be studied by the CDC and, presumably, "remedied" by even more ridiculous, harmful legislation.
And no one really wants to see the DHS getting involved in local vice cases. The DHS has already proven it knows almost nothing about securing the homeland. Asking it to dip into prostitution busts is basically asking for widespread rights violations, especially if this activity takes places in the so-called "Constitution-Free Zone," which covers areas where a large majority of the US population resides.
Also included: more federal targeting of customers and a potential to add "hate crime" sentencing enhancements to the crime of buying sex. Brown points out the bill orders the DOJ to view buying sex as a "form of gender-based violence."
And there's more, which hardly seems possible. Prostitutes could possibly be legally considered "criminal street gang members" under proposed legislation. And some bills would allow the government to start seizing personal property if fines are not paid.
The named target is sex trafficking and the supposed beneficiaries would be children, who are kidnapped and exploited all the damn time according to stats made up out of thin air. But the real targets will be the oldest profession, which includes plenty of un-exploited sex workers voluntarily providing services to paying customers. But the end result will be a spectacular amount of collateral damage -- and that's not just limited to customers having their conversations intercepted or being hit with hate crime enhancements. The proposed legislation would also wreak havoc on the internet.
Grassley's bill cobbles together a host of changes that give federal prosecuting agencies more power. Among other things, it would create a federal mandate to fight "sextortion" (without defining what this means); ask the quasi-governmental National Center for Missing and Exploited to assist the government in identifying "misleading domain names" and "misleading words or digital images on the Internet"; and more than quadruple annual appropriations for grants related to these activities.
Starting with this premise, those caught up in these supposed anti-sex trafficking efforts will find themselves in the position of proving a negative. If the government decides you're looking for child porn or exploited children (or offering either of these) but can't find images or terminology affirming this hunch, it can still go after you for being "misleading."
These bills may namecheck sex trafficking and carry the veneer of honest law enforcement work, but underneath every one of them lies the Puritanical notion that buying and selling sex is immoral and must be punished not by God, but by the government itself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, congress, privacy, sex trafficking, surveillance, wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Legislator in FL pushed for a bill to make it illegal to pork a pumpkin... gets caught porking a pumpkin on a roof.
https://gayhomophobe.com/ has a long list of those in power who denounced the evils of homos, getting caught molesting kids, hiring escorts, being secretly gay.
Now with this pattern in mind...
Look at those who are denouncing sex workers, any doubts they avail themselves of the services?
This is a moral panic law over imagined horrors.
Legalize sex work for consenting adults, tax it, test it.
Then focus on the REAL bad actors rather than thinking just because someone chooses sex work means they are trafficked and on drugs.
Oh and if you are gonna push these kinds of laws while using the services, you should tip them more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Is it midnight ALREADY?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not any doubt at all. Maybe it's time for those sex workers to go to all their other important/influential clients and go "I'm going to get caught by this bill anyway, so if it passes I'm going to out all my clients publicly and negotiate for a light sentence in return for my cooperation. So you may want to make sure it gets scuttled and stays scuttled."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It never has in the past, even with legal systems and severe punishments impossible under our constitution, but they keep hoping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are people who believe if they click like or sign the online petition, the problem is fixed.
It is a stupid mentality. We slap a label on it then it can be fixed immediately.
Their personal bubbles don't include people screwed by these stupid laws, so they can't see the problems until it touches them... and it doesn't.
Look at the number of people who still think that pot can make you freak out and attack people... all because hemp might have replaced cotton. No ones willing to challenge it because it must be right because they told us so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That makes no sense at all. Something is legal until laws are passed to make it a crime. It is the passing of laws that makes something criminal, therefore by definition, passing laws makes more criminality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"...any doubts they avail themselves of the services?"
I'm more of the view that these are a bunch of overweight, balding, halitosis-riddled, derelict voyeurs who have zero charisma or personality, and even less chance of ever getting laid. This is their chance to get in on the raw, dirty, hot sweaty action. In real-time. Oh yeah, baby.
Why pay for something if you can get it for free. On the taxpayer's dime, and with next-to-no risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So yeah, they're behind the "Buying sex is gender-based violence" trope.
While I don't personally approve of prostitution I do think we should stop trying to ban it and tax and regulate it instead. It's a demand-side issue so prohibition can't work. If we can't control it let's contain it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where money/goods are traded, crime soon follows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention professional sport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way
There is some real sex trafficking in the US.
But that said, going after prostitution is just a waste of time. Prostitution is like marijuana, it simply shouldn't be illegal, and it punishes people for moral reasons rather than them harming anyone.
Google "Adam ruins everything prostitution" and watch the youtube video it finds.
It explains how prostitution wasn't always illegal in the US. And how a lot of women, especially in the western US, made big money off of being prostitutes. Many of those women were responsible helping to settle the west, and became extremely influential people in their communities because of all the money they made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way
Prostitution is not and never has been a glamorous trade, it's dirty, nasty, and dangerous for most women. The only reason why so many are in it is because of the lack of economic opportunity. Put simply, it pays more than most jobs available to women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way
Is this from personal experience or an assumption from media? I'll grant that it's not exactly savoury and I can't imagine many girls thinking, "I want to grow up to be a prostitute", but how much of the "dirt" and "danger" is due to it being mostly illegal?
Dangerous as in catch STDs? Health screening and standards could reduce that. Dangerous as in chance of violence? How much less likely does that become if you can report the crime without getting arrested yourself or being told you were asking for it? Dirty as in morally? Says who? Often the same people who get caught partaking. Dirty as in grime? Again, standards.
Done for lack of economic opportunity? Well, there's a huge generalisation for a start, but apart from that, who are you to say a woman (or, in fact a man) shouldn't have the choice to do it over, say, a minimum wage job? I imagine that if you took away a lot of the danger and stigmata and health risks, there would be more job satisfaction for some people than stacking shelves for a living or possibly even higher paid work - I imagine that were it safe and mainstream it might be considered more fun for some people than, say, accounting.
Oh, and sexist much? Why consider just women as prostitutes? Plenty of male prostitutes and, looking from the outside, I'd guess a larger proportion of them would fall up the "dirty and dangerous" end of the profession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way
Eh? I've read the memoirs of people in the trade. They're also very defensive about it; you'd expect people who insist it is a job like any other to be matter-of-fact about what's actually involved. So actually most of what I know about the sex trade is from conversations with people in it.
RE: illegality, legalising it would make it better but no more "savoury."
_Dangerous as in catch STDs? Health screening and standards could reduce that. Dangerous as in chance of violence? How much less likely does that become if you can report the crime without getting arrested yourself or being told you were asking for it? Dirty as in morally? Says who? Often the same people who get caught partaking. Dirty as in grime? Again, standards._
Rubbers don't prevent you catching herpes and some hookers are actually complaining about the number of tests they have to take. So yeah, even standards won't protect us if they won't adhere to them themselves because testing makes them feel icky and some of the people carrying out the tests are self-righteous gits attempting to rescue them for moral reasons, etc. As I said, I've spoken to these people, that's what informs me.
_Done for lack of economic opportunity? Well, there's a huge generalisation for a start, but apart from that, who are you to say a woman (or, in fact a man) shouldn't have the choice to do it over, say, a minimum wage job? I imagine that if you took away a lot of the danger and stigmata and health risks, there would be more job satisfaction for some people than stacking shelves for a living or possibly even higher paid work - I imagine that were it safe and mainstream it might be considered more fun for some people than, say, accounting.
Oh, and sexist much? Why consider just women as prostitutes? Plenty of male prostitutes and, looking from the outside, I'd guess a larger proportion of them would fall up the "dirty and dangerous" end of the profession._
Women tend to be more likely to get into the trade than men, particularly where lack of economic opportunity is a factor. That's not sexism, it's statistics. Wind your neck in; I'd rather have it legal, taxed, and regulated than not, as it is now. Making the sex trade mainstream assumes that it's not degrading and that everyone would enjoy it were it not for the stigma. Try asking women who live in red light districts what it's like to be accosted by people looking to buy sex. I'd restrict red light districts to areas away from families so those who want to be involved can go for it but leave the rest of us alone. Who are you to say I ought to tolerate some perve leering at me from the roadside asking if I'm looking for business on my way home from work? RE: male prostitutes, yes, they should have their needs considered too. I'm not moralising, I'm trying to be practical, taking social needs into consideration.
Again, this is a demand-side issue; it needs to be contained, not ignored and punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, how will DHS or whoever is watching this know if a phone is being used for sex work? Stingray captures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not if Dr. Farnum in Colorado has any say. A phone would take away their wonder, laughter and freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah!
So why, Mr Cushing, are you so misleadingly excited about law makers' best efforts to let law enforcement catch up with child porn and child exploitation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah!
but can't find images or terminology affirming this hunch
Because evidence matters, dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hah!
Think you should have started that one with "Once upon a time..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah!
Because law enforcement's going to target everything except child porn and child exploitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hah!
You have a fine sense of tradition.
In Canada we had then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' Bill C-30, the "Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act", which was really about adopting a wide range of measures that increased police powers, stripped away privacy rights, and increased Internet surveillance.
Wikipedia: Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act:
Toews later got a career-ending taste of his own anti-privacy medicine and didn't seem to like it much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since most prostitution these days is through the internet (and over the telephone) rather than standing on a street corner, it makes sense that law enforcement would want to target communications. Just like the CIA's reliance on "wiretapping" radio communications of suspected terrorist organizations rather than "boots on the ground" surveillance and infiltration methods, blanket eavesdropping is the safe and lazy approach to law enforcement, and that's why it's always going to be the preferred method..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like the CIA's reliance on "wiretapping" radio communications of suspected terrorist organizations rather than "boots on the ground" surveillance and infiltration methods, blanket eavesdropping is the safe and lazy approach to law enforcement, and that's why it's always going to be the preferred method..
I mean, apart from the fact that if the CIA sends people in they have a good chance of being caught, tortured and executed, whereas if the police send people in they have a good chance of missing their coffee break...
But yes, otherwise very similar situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extremist views
Both sides are using the real suffering of children to make cheap ideological shots, and they really shouldn't.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trafficking-arrests-idUSKBN15G5J6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extremist views
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extremist views
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extremist views
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extremist views
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extremist views
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIP George Carlin
"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"
But yeah, I see some politicians' careers in jeopardy. Unless, of course, they write an "exemption" for themselves like they do everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIP George Carlin
I mean, it's safer to buy politicians wholesale anyway.
What I wanted to say: syllogisms don't help with a sensible discussion. Not that you'll get any about prostitution either way but at least one side may try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIP George Carlin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIP George Carlin
A smart cop would pocket said recording for personal and/or unofficial use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIP George Carlin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RIP George Carlin
There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams, H2G2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP George Carlin
Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP George Carlin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIP George Carlin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDC study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did they really think this through?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you consider...
So if someone in congress or the legislatures thinks that serious sex crimes are happening in the guise of plain Jane prostitution - or even knows enough about it to want a law - they are likely more knowledgeable than the average person about these details. Any hypocritical.
I guess the money and goods being seized as "drug crimes proceeds" is falling off and law enforcement is pushing for a new revenue source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you consider...
Think of the private prisons for a change - sheeesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
idk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should prove interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's also sex trafficking, just like there's legal and illegal fishing.
Sex trafficking is a terrible and must be fought. But prostitution should be regualted like any other economic activity with supply and demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]