DOJ Seizes And Shuts Down Backpage.com (Before SESTA Has Even Been Signed)
from the well,-well,-well dept
So here's a Friday evening surprise: the DOJ has just seized Backpage. If you visit the site now you will see the following graphic:
It notes that additional information will be provided soon, and we'll update this post when that occurs. But first, there are a few important things to note. Before and after SESTA was voted on by Congress, we noted that while supporters of SESTA kept pointing to Backpage as the reason we needed to change CDA 230, there were two reasons why we thought it was premature to make such a change. The first was that there was a court in Massachusetts considering whether or not Backpage had lost its CDA 230 immunity by being an active participant in creating trafficking ads. And the second, more important, one was that there were many reports claiming that a DOJ grand jury was investigating Backpage, and nothing in CDA 230 stopped that from happening (federal crimes are exempt from CDA 230).
Last week the Massachusetts court ruled that Backpage had lost its CDA 230 immunity for at least one victim, and this week a court in Florida ruled the same thing (though for dubious reasons).
And now the DOJ has seized the entire site, suggesting that the grand jury found the evidence it needed to take it down (we'll reserve judgment on that evidence until the indictment is out).
And while SESTA has been approved by Congress, it is still not the law. The President is likely going to sign it next week.
So we have a pretty big open question: if SESTA was supposedly necessary to take down Backpage -- and yet now both of the key reasons many of us noted that Backpage probably wasn't protected have been not just proven true, but resulted in Backpage being seized -- why do we still need SESTA?
We'll be back with more later when the details are out, but for the SESTA supporters out there, let's hear your answers.
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: cda 230, doj, fosta, intermediary liability, seizure, sesta, sex trafficking
Companies: backpage
Reader Comments
The First Word
“We heard tons of whataboutism, facts denial and incoherent babbling from the pro-SESTA crew, I don't expect this glaring evidence that SESTA isn't needed to produce any different reaction.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
why do we still need SESTA?
Because due process is inconvenient, but random unverifiable accusations of questionable authenticity and origin are priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because our Congresscritters need to have a warm and fuzzy moment, even if it's crap legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why oh why were all those legal reasons to have backpage not taken into account when they shut it down.
This is a big loss to the community of people that used to use it, but i am sure there is a backup that can be used under another name maybe not involving america this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given how fast and loose the DOJ played with US and NZ law going after him I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.
They wanted him bad, such that I strongly suspect that even if he'd had no US presence in any real sense they'd have still found some justification to claim he was still under US jurisdiction, and/or should be extradited to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal reasons for webservices
When MegaUpload was seized and shut down, the clients getting legal use of it by far outnumbered the illegal, and yet the shutdown still occurred leaving a number of people who depended on it as an archive without their data, leading to an EFF-led rescue service, later. ICE was happy to let people suffer without their data. Serves them right for dealing with a criminal was the attitude.
So the Backpage shutdown we're seeing right now has nothing to do with right and wrong, legal and illegal. It is about one institution taking down an enemy.
The human traffickers and trafficking victims are simply getting caught in the crossfire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“As to the particular consumer's interest in the free flow of commercial information, that interest may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his interest in the day's most urgent political debate.”
——Mr Justice Blackmun, opinion for the court in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy (1976)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ever happened to
Did I somehow miss the complete revocation of The Constitution of The United States of America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What ever happened to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What ever happened to
“The use by government of the power of search and seizure as an adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications is not new. Historically the struggle for freedom of speech and press in England was bound up with the issue of the scope of the search and seizure power. . . . ”
—— Mr. Justice Brennan, opinion for the court in Marcus v Search Warrant (1961)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What ever happened to
In Arcara v Cloud Books (1986)—
If you recall the Rojadirecta arguments, then perhaps you'll recall this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We heard tons of whataboutism, facts denial and incoherent babbling from the pro-SESTA crew, I don't expect this glaring evidence that SESTA isn't needed to produce any different reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only real question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at that long list of involved agencies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at that long list of involved agencies...
/s (maybe)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at that long list of involved agencies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at that long list of involved agencies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at that long list of involved agencies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok...lets hear it
A Law designed only for 1 TYPE of communication??
To FOCUS on 1 site in a world of sites??
RUN CRAIG'S LIST RUN..(if Craig's isnt next...THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY WRONG)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOSTA is to make CLEAR that corporatists are WRONG: NOT immune,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOSTA is to make CLEAR that corporatists are WRONG: NOT immune,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOSTA is to make CLEAR that corporatists are WRONG: NOT immune,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOSTA is to make CLEAR that corporatists are WRONG: NOT immune,
When a corporations offers an open site, even if it requires a sign up; or a site allows open comments, they are a communications medium with little control over the communications. O.K. when those communications are stored, it is reasonable that they are allowed to remove any that they find offensive or illegal without, or are notified of, without being held liable for what they remove or leave up.
Do you really want the Internet to be turned into cable TV v2, and have all content moderated by corporations, because that is the alternative to granting them immunity for what users post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
us congress unfit to run country RESIGN
I CALL FOR ALL TO RESIGN THIS IS CERTAINLY OVERSTEPPING AND NOT IN A GOODWAY SO IF THIS BILL WAS THE ONLY THING YOU COULD AGREE TO PASS THEN MY POINT IS PROVEN RESIGN RESIGN RESIGN RESIGN US CONGRESS UNFIT TO RUN OUR COUNTRY ANY LONGER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since you say now it's redundant, changes nothing,
why did YOU spend a couple years on the topic, a couple months recently wailing it's teh end of teh internets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since you say now it's redundant, changes nothing,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today's "Raid" in Tucson's premiere colocation facility
They were professional, courteous, and allowed us to contact the point-of-contact for Backpage's hosting provider. (We merely provide the colocation datacenter space, not the servers or content).
They took all the servers offline, extracted from racks, photographed them, and took them away.
I offered to get them stock shots of other servers, since servers from the outside don't really tell you *anything* about content on the inside or who posted it.
Also in the warrant they intend to seize the "criminal intent of the mind" but it wasn't clear of whose. I asked about how they intended to do that... and got a smile.
And now there are reports they also raided the backpage founders' homes ... I have to wonder why today...
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Today's "Raid" in Tucson's premiere colocation facility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Today's "Raid" in Tucson's premiere colocation facility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SESTA/FOSTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SESTA sure won't be good for Trump.
If Trump doesn't sign SESTA, everyone will hate him because he's not going along with the wishes of Congress.
He's screwed either way on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SESTA sure won't be good for Trump.
Dammit, another $130k down the drain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SESTA sure won't be good for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) get laws passed that threaten the entire intetnet
3) seize the domains under the current laws that they claimed were ineffective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even with the tools promised for you, you couldn't wait to sic your trigger-happy law enforcement buddies before the pen was even allowed to place the ink on the paper to dry.
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sealed Case
Update from Buzzfeed, on today's story by Blake Montgomery, “Backpage Has Been Taken Down By The US Government And Sex Workers Aren’t Happy” (updated Apr 6, 2018, 5:57 pm.)
(Via @chrisgeidner)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courtroom closed to public
“Backpage founder charged by feds after human-trafficking investigation”, by Richard Ruelas and Megan Cassidy, Arizona Republic, Apr 6, 2018 (updated 6:36 p.m. MT)
(Via Politico.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the Feds were seizing pirate domains ten years ago, the site would come back with a new domain name. That is they attempted to pass the Commercial Felony Streaming Act in 2011.
When sites start registering new domain names, what other kinds of draconian legislation will be passed to address this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When this is overturned I really hope Backpage gets revegenge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When this is overturned I really hope Backpage gets revegenge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When this is overturned I really hope Backpage gets revegenge
It's the same as the Dajaz1 case where ICE seized the site based on absolutely no evidence, quietly restored it after five years (during which no action was taken against the site's administrators)... and the RIAA crowed about it, claiming it was a victory for anti-piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When this is overturned I really hope Backpage gets revegenge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetical
Under what level of specificity of the ad and knowledge of the operator ( which might be a purely vote-based program) does the site owner become legally liable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypothetical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short answer: no.
In prior articles I've reframed this hypothetical into trashy romance format:
Your husband's small business is finally turning a tidy profit, enough that he can expand his business to the state level, but his rival is a state official who has resented your pairing since the wedding. Unable to constrain himself any longer, the rival puts his fiendish plot into action
The rival arranges your husbands assets seized along with his website. The raid is spectacular with MRAPS full of black-clad SWAT squads. Amid smoke and rifles, they seized your husband and took him away. That's the last time you saw him, a free man.
Your husband's indictment takes less than a minute. His conviction is practically certain, and he plea-bargains for a shorter sentence in a nicer prison.
In the meantime, your belongings seized, you are penniless and on the verge of homelessness. This is when the rival presents you with his sinister offer: Be his mistress. Serve him well in the bedchamber, and you will live in the luxury that suits your tastes and sensibilities.
Fail, and face an unforgiving job market. The rival assures you it will be cold indeed, as he will blackball you at every turn, and even low paying retail service will be hard to keep. Furthermore, he will arrange for your husband to be transferred to a harsher prison and subject to prison rape, that is if he is not disappeared altogether to be tortured in a black site.
Coming soon to Amazon. Sadly, all of this is not only plausible, but probably (more or less) happening today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short answer: no.
Back to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy...
I think the problem is one of insecurity in the individuals -- that is, if I solve the problem at hand, I won't have a job!
You can take that as an opportunity if you like, but on average, I think, most take that as a threat to their own security.
The solution then becomes how to keep things small and scrappy with a constant outflow of people to better opportunities so putting a given enterprise out of business isn't such a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Short answer: no.
If one day you have something to say, I excitedly look reading to it.
Your illiterate druggy rant above... impressed me with you ability to put lots of words together and say nothing.
This is about backpage. You did read the original article, right? Oh. No? Try that first.
P.S. Jerry Pournelle hates your misquoting him. think of as an evolution in action for developmentaly challenged you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Short answer: no.
...seems you took a mental shortcut, made assumptions, and jumped to conclusions. Not a good look...worth a warning point or a ban on many websites. Now yes, there are a bunch of blanks in my telegraphic post which need filling in, and yes, it's a little bit off topic.
First, Uriel238 didn't directly answer my question that he was directly replying to: "with a post for something bad, when *should* the website management become liable?". I forgave that and ignored it, because I like his trashy romance, which I think may be an excellent description of the backpage situation, with the only question being if anyone besides the MPAA is behind Kamela Harris and her crusade. Kim Dotcom is written all over this raid...what with a secret indictment, taking out the top people, and all.
Second, I had asked, in an earlier post, about how to prevent some manifestation (the dysfunction that was the subject of the post) of the spirit of Pournelle's law of organizations, and Uriel had pointed out to me that's exactly what it was, and that the problem was likely as old as the question about the chicken crossing the road... and in fact, most of what Techdirt reports on, especially backpage, looks like example after example of that law.
I begin by pointing out how the security of working within an organization tends to lead to individuals not wanting to declare that the problem they are working on has been solved... and posit that attacking the problem of individual security would tend to effectively counteract the phenomenon which is Pournelle's law, for the greater good of all of us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Short answer: no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pournelle, RIP
Recently deceased. Dangit. Now I'm sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wandering
You are missing some context...Uriel had earlier(on another POst) quoted Pournelle to me about organizations tending to want to perpetuate themselves as opposed to solving whatever problem they were set up to address.
Here, it’s perhaps tangential... and a definite context jump without warning...but it does seem that the attack on backpage is the result of certain organizations trying hard to stay relevant in the face of a changed environment, and worsening the very problem they are supposed to address.
Unfortunately, my original question about where the line should be went unanswered...seems backpage may be locked into Uriel’s trashy romance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedantics of Pournelle
Pournelle's model sees the transition of institutions from function-serving to (purely) self-serving as gradual. It's explained better on his Wikipedia page. In the case of the US legal system, it has alreadly long fallen to corruption and perverse incentives, so yeah, it's a good example of Pournelle's Iron Law in action.
The problem now is one intrinsic to the United States and its constitution: is it possible to reform the legal system without violent recourse, given those reform requires cooperation of those in power?
If not, then violent revolution is inevitable, and all we can ask is how soon and what will replace the old regime?
(One of the problems with violent purges is they often don't fix the problems that triggered them. We may well end up with an aristocratic hanging court eager to convict and execute anyone that displeases it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally posted them
https://www.justice.gov/file/1050276/download
Press Release:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-leads-effort-seize-backpagecom-internet-s- leading-forum-prostitution-ads
It basically looks like it boils down to them using the credit card freezing a few years back as an excuse for money laundering charges. Everything else is conspiracy charges relating to obtaining money from sex ads and moderating the accepted ads.
It reminds me of the Kim Dotcom charges sounding great in general but holding no truth once you dig down into anything specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: adposta
Unfortunately it also has an extradition treaty with the United States.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]