Another Pre-Super Bowl 'Sex Trafficking Sting' Busts A Bunch Of People Trying To Buy Sex From Cops Pretending To Be Teens

from the sex-trafficking-still-a-relatively-safe-profession dept

Every Super Bowl is greeted with the same breathless stories about sex trafficking. As thousands of visitors descend on the unlucky host of The Big Game™, local law enforcement agencies -- sometimes accompanied by the DHS -- are there to claim there will be a sex trafficking victim for every Super Bowl attendee. Hundreds of law enforcement officers perform sweeps costing taxpayers millions of dollars. And every year, it's the same story: very little sex trafficking found, but a whole lot of sex buyers and sex workers are cited and/or jailed.

Prostitution may be the oldest profession, but it couldn't have been far ahead of "law enforcement spokesperson." Someone is always on the scene to spout meaningless numbers to press stenographers in order to perpetuate the myth that large gatherings = sex trafficking en masse. Few journalists dig into these claims.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason does perform the due diligence local journalists won't. Following the 2017 Super Bowl, Brown obtained booking sheets to see if law enforcement had snagged dozens of sex traffickers in the 750+ arrests made pre-Super Bowl.

Super Bowl 2017 was held in Houston, which sits in Harris County, Texas. Each day, the county posts its previous 24-hours worth of arrests on the Harris County Sherrif's Office (HCSO) website. The arrest report for February 6, 2017, contains more than 11 pages of arrests, including 12 for prostitution, a lot of DUI and driving-on-a-suspended-license charges, some marijuana possession, several assaults, theft, forgery, driving without a seatbelt, one "parent contributing to truancy," and a few for racing on the highway. The February 7 HSCO arrest log shows three arrests for prostitution. But neither reveals a single arrest for sex trafficking, soliciting a minor, pimping, promoting prostitution, compelling prostitution, or any other charges that might suggest forced or voluntary sex trade.

Maggie McNeill, an actual sex worker, has also debunked victorious pre-Super Bowl claims delivered by police hype men. According to law enforcement, more than "42" victims of sex trafficking were "contacted" during prostitution sweeps prior to the 2016 Super Bowl. But there's not 42 of anything in this mess:

42 potential human trafficking victims were contacted during the three weeks leading up to the big game…More than half of the victims were put in direct contact with an advocate or support group and…the task force arrested or cited 30…alleged clients of possible prostitutes…one “girl” was arrested for prostitution and resisting arrest…another “girl” was cited for prostitution…four people were cited for aiding in prostitution, two were cited for loitering with intent for prostitution, one potential victim disclosed other sex crimes and kidnapping, and two human trafficking cases involved a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old from Sacramento which resulted in a human trafficking arrest…one arrest for violation of a domestic violence restraining order and three arrests for other warrants…

As McNeill points out, the 15-year-old was a runaway with mental health issues -- a far cry from the panicked claims sex traffickers are lurking everywhere to poach teens off the street. As for the 17-year-old, she was apparently being "trafficked" by a slightly-older friend, who was also arrested.

As even McNeill notes, sex trafficking does happen. It just happens far less frequently than government officials claim, even as they use it to justify sweeps that do nothing more than temporarily inconvenience a few johns or, worse, punch holes in legal protections for third-party service providers. None of what's detailed above justifies all of the following, as summarized by McNeill and her inimitable prose:

Vast amounts of hype, blanketing an entire metropolis with pigs, spooks and g-men, millions wasted, thousands of words of anti-whore propaganda bloviated out, and for what? 21 women were given a phone number, 30 guys were tricked by cops with fake ads, two adult and two underage sex workers were arrested, six other people were arrested on bullshit charges, and four people arrested on warrants. The other 21 women were essentially just made up; “potential trafficking victims”? Really? Yeah, well every sex worker in the Bay Area is a potential police brutality and police rape victim, but I don’t see them counting that statistic.

Last year's Super Bowl featured the same stories. Law enforcement officials claimed they had busted 94 men in a "sex trafficking sting." In reality, all they'd done is arrest 94 men for trying to solicit sex from law enforcement officers pretending to be underage girls. Again, a couple dozen "potential victims" were "contacted" and referred to outreach groups, but nowhere in the arrest records will you find an actual sex trafficker, despite 57 officers putting in "20 hour days" for 11 straight days prior to the Super Bowl.

This year's stories have arrived and the numbers delivered by law enforcement again suggest two possibilities: either sex trafficking isn't nearly as prevalent as they believe it is, or the business model has some serious flaws.

Days before the New England Patriots and Los Angeles Rams are set to face off in Atlanta, 33 people were busted for sex trafficking in the lead-up to the big game, federal law enforcement officials announced Wednesday.

In a press conference outlining Super Bowl LIII safety measures, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced the arrests, adding four victims have been rescued.

33 traffickers and only four victims. Sure, the ratio's never going to be one-to-one, but you'd think it would be a lot closer than that. It's unlikely any trafficker is trafficking only one victim. In order for it to be the multi-billion dollar industry alarmists claim it is, traffickers most likely have at least a few victims each just to ensure profitability. Even if these traffickers are cut-and-run experts, you'd think the ratio would be more like three-to-one at worst, rather than ten-to-one.

The narrative about mass sex trafficking -- probably involving large numbers of underage victims -- is already falling apart. The DHS is being willfully vague about the arrests, but statements from local law enforcement agencies point to a bunch of cops sitting at desks pretending to be teenagers. And there appears to be a lack of underage victims, which kind of undercuts the usefulness of playing internet dress-up with pervs around the country.

On Jan. 23 and 24, Homeland Security assisted in a joint operation in Douglas County using undercover officers, social media sites and local hotel rooms, the Douglasville Police Department said Wednesday. Sixteen people were arrested, according to police, and the youngest person involved was 17. The timing of the crackdown was related to the Super Bowl, police said.

I not so boldly predict this narrative will collapse on itself just like it has following every other Super Bowl. The Big Game may draw big numbers. But it's not a sex trafficking mecca, nor is it an almost invisible symptom of a supposedly-billion dollar problem.

Filed Under: dhs, exaggeration, ice, moral panic, overhype, sex trafficking, sex workers, super bowl

The Utter Failure Of FOSTA: More Lives At Risk... And Sex Ads Have Increased, Not Decreased

from the pushing-things-further-underground... dept

Once again, as we predicted, FOSTA -- a law ostensibly passed to stop sex trafficking -- has been a total disaster. Passed based on totally inaccurate moral panics, it has resulted in online censorship and highly questionable lawsuits. But, worst of all, despite all the rhetoric about how it was necessary to save the lives of young girls, it has actually put them at much greater risk, and increased the amount of sex trafficking, while decreasing the ability of police to track down and arrest actual traffickers.

As this was all becoming clear a few months back, the legislators who pushed FOSTA tried to completely rewrite history to claim it was a success. Chief among them was the original sponsor of FOSTA, Rep. Ann Wagner, who announced that FOSTA was responsible for "shutting down nearly 90% of the online sex trafficking business and ads." This was wrong on multiple levels. That number was based on the shutdown of Backpage, which happened before FOSTA was law and had nothing to do with FOSTA. Even worse, an investigation into that 90% number by the Washington Post showed that even it was not true. At that time, the research showed that, while there was a brief plunge in sex ads after Backpage was seized (again, separate from FOSTA), the volume was coming back up to about the same level.

And, now, a new report by software company Marinus Analytics has found that online sex ads are showing up at an even higher rate than before FOSTA became law.

According to Pittsburgh-based software company Marinus Analytics, there were about 146,000 online sex ads posted per day in the U.S. on leading escort websites from mid-September to mid-October—and the company expects the total for this month to be even higher.

In contrast, there were about 133,000 such ads posted on Backpage in the month before its shutdown, Marinus Analytics found.

Instead of backing away amid the government crackdown on sex trafficking, some escort websites are doubling down on their business model and see the Backpage shutdown as an opportunity to expand, said Emily Kennedy, Marinus Analytics' president and co-founder.

"They're really competing with each other for that spot now and so we're seeing frequent activity at this point," she said, adding that as long as the business remains lucrative, "people are going to figure out a way to advertise it."

Of course, unlike Backpage -- which regularly cooperated with law enforcement to help -- these new sites obviously have zero incentive at all to cooperate with law enforcement who are trying to track down actual traffickers. Because, thanks to FOSTA, these sites now need to try to stay away from any attention from law enforcement.

So, to recap, this law designed to stop sex trafficking by criminalizing sites that host ads around prostitution has:

• Not stopped those ads (indeed, they've increased)
• Enabled greater censorship of the internet.
• Enabled wasteful and dangerous lawsuits against internet companies.
• Made it more difficult for law enforcement to track down and arrest actual traffickers.
• Put many, many people in grave risk of injury and death.

So, where are all the supporters of FOSTA now that basically everything that we critics predicted has come true?

Filed Under: ads, ann wagner, fosta, sex trafficking

Another Report Shows That FOSTA Increased (Not Decreased) Sex Trafficking; Where Is The Outrage?

from the next-time-listen-to-experts dept

Before FOSTA passed, a ton of experts warned it would lead to bad things, and now we're seeing more and more stories about how FOSTA is actually increasing the sex trafficking problem, rather than decreasing it. Police have admitted that it's now harder to catch traffickers without the information they used to get from Backpage, and pimps have apparently seized on the opportunity to make use of the disappearance of Backpage and other sites to more aggressively position themselves as the only option for sex workers.

The latest such report to make this clear is in the San Francisco Chronicle, where police note that FOSTA has emboldened pimps to take control of sex workers' lives:

“Without being able to advertise online,” Long said, “a huge number of sex workers were forced to go outside, and many have reported that former pimps came out of the woodwork offering to ‘manage’ their business again since they were now rendered unable to find and screen clients online.”

[...]

“The very bill that was supposed to stop trafficking has quite literally given formerly irrelevant traffickers new life,” Long said.

I'm truly curious how the various folks who stumped for FOSTA now feel about this. A bunch of Hollywood stars, including Amy Schumer, Seth Meyers, Josh Charles and Tony Shaloub, all stumped on behalf of FOSTA, making claims that were blatantly untrue. It would be nice if these celebrities could respond to all of the new evidence showing that -- just as sex workers and experts predicted -- FOSTA has made the situation much worse for sex workers, and put many of them in serious danger.

Filed Under: danger, fosta, san francisco, sex trafficking

'Missing, Sex Trafficked' Children Neither Missing, Nor Victims Of Sex Trafficking

from the moral-panics-are-the-worst dept

For quite some time we've highlighted the horrible laws being pushed by aggressively misrepresenting the size of the problem of sex trafficking -- and especially sex trafficking of children. This is not to say that it never happens. Nor is it to suggest that the crime of sex trafficking, especially of minors, is not horrific and hugely problematic. But we shouldn't overreact to false information. A year ago, we looked at some of the numbers being presented in favor of passing FOSTA, and found they were almost entirely bullshit. This included Rep. Ann Wagner's (who is the leading pusher of bad laws around "sex trafficking") claim child sex trafficking alone was a $9.5 billion industry. As we noted, this number came from a bizarre nonsensical extrapolation of a very misleading and confused report by ICE that covered issues of smuggling (not just sex trafficking). Other stats -- such as the supposed number of kids "lured" into sex trafficking -- showed even more extrapolation, while police were finding very, very few actual cases of this happening.

But, the narrative has been set and the media makes it into reality, even if... it's not. Take this headline from the NY Post from last week, claiming "123 missing children found in Michigan during sex trafficking operation":

Wow. That would be a pretty astoundingly successful police operation, and certainly gives weight to the idea that so many kids are lured into sex trafficking rings and then disappear and go missing. Except... details matter. And deep in the NY Post story they actually admit that out of the 123 missing kids only three were "identified as possible sex trafficking victims." So, uh, why does the headline suggest that all 123 kids are sex trafficking victims when it's not clear if any are, and clear that the vast majority are not?

And then there's this: only four of the kids were actually missing.

What's more, all but four of the "missing children" were not actually missing. In the remaining cases, minors were listed in a police database as missing but had since been found or returned home on their own. "Many were (homeschooled)," Lt. Michael Shaw told The Detroit News. "Some were runaways as well."

Indeed, if you look at the report, it notes that all of the kids outside of those four "were found safe with their parents or guardians."

So, remember, the headline screamed that 123 missing children were found in a sex trafficking "operation." Now it seems that most of them were "found" at home with their parents, and only three of them might have been victims of sex trafficking. These seem like important details, especially when you have election officials like Rep. Ann Wagner pushing a vast surveillance bill on the basis of the problem of sex trafficking. Pushing bogus information like over a hundred missing kids being engaged in sex trafficking only helps build that narrative -- one that appears to actually be much, much more limited than the media or lying politicians will let you know about.

Filed Under: ann wagner, exaggeration, fosta, moral panic, police, sex trafficking, surveillan

Washington Post Gives 'Three Pinocchios' To Rep. Ann Wagner For Falsely Claiming FOSTA Stopped 90% Of Sex Trafficking Ads

from the not-how-it-works dept

Back in July we were flabbergasted to see a stunningly misleading and dishonest video put out by the the House Judiciary Committee trying to claim that FOSTA had been a huge success in stopping sex trafficking. There is literally no evidence to suggest this, while there's plenty of evidence to show the harm that has been created by FOSTA. One of the claims in the video came from Rep. Ann Wagner, who was the original sponsor of FOSTA and has been a leading voice in stoking the exaggerated and misleading moral panic around sex trafficking (which is a real problem, but very, very limited compared to what many -- including Wagner -- have said about it). Wagner's latest trick has been to try to massively expand the PATRIOT Act for spying on Americans by again freaking everyone out about sex trafficking.

As we noted back in July, in the video, Wagner tries to imply that FOSTA helped kill off 90% of sex trafficking. She worded it awkwardly so that it clearly implies 90% of sex trafficking went away due to FOSTA, but it could also be read to just say that 90% of sex trafficking ads went away. As we pointed out at the time, this was clearly not true either way. While Backpage contained many ads, it stopped with those ads a year and a half before FOSTA was law, and was taken down by the feds before FOSTA was signed. So there was literally no way that FOSTA could be in any way credited for a drop in ads coming from Backpage.

I missed it, but a few weeks later, the Washington Post set its fact checker on these specific claims, and did an even more thorough analysis, even asking Wagner's office for details. And those details make Wagner look even worse, leading the Washington Post to give her the full three Pinocchios in their final ruling on the accuracy of her claim. Specifically, Wagner's office argued that a DARPA analysis saw a "weekly global ad volume dropped 87 percent from January to April." But, as the WaPo article notes (and as we did as well) the vast majority of that was from the takedown of Backpage, which was not due to FOSTA.

But, from there things get even worse. The Washington Post asked DARPA for what happened after April and found... things are not at all what the House Judiciary Committee and Wagner were claiming. Indeed, while there was an initial decline due to Backpage shutting down (again, not due to FOSTA), it quickly went back up after April -- conveniently ignored by Wagner and the HJC. Why contaminate the narrative with facts:

Worldwide ads had a daily average of about 105,000 when FOSTA-SESTA passed on March 21 and had dropped 28 percent by the time Backpage was closed on April 5. It then plunged another 75 percent and reached a low of 19,456 on April 17, for a total decline of about 82 percent.

But on the day the Judiciary Committee posted the video, sex-trade ads were back at about 50 percent of the daily volume before the law had passed; as of Aug. 11, they were at almost 75 percent....

“The volume of ads dropped dramatically after the shutdown of Backpage but has been climbing since,” said Chris Dickson, director of research engineering at Uncharted. “There is now a volume approaching what we observed before.”

So, once again it appears that Wagner and the HJC like to completely make up stories for grandstanding political purposes. They over-hyped the size of sex trafficking to pass this bad law, and then they massively over-hyped the impact of the law, ignoring (1) that the impact they took credit for had nothing to do with the law, and (2) ignoring that the data didn't actually support what they claimed.

So why the hell is anyway still listening to Rep. Ann Wagner and her use of "sex trafficking" to try to pass new laws?

Filed Under: advertising, ann wagner, fosta, grandstanding, house judiciary committee, lies, sex trafficking

Facebook, Whose Support Made FOSTA Law, Now Sued For Facilitating Sex Trafficking Under FOSTA

from the like-we-couldn't-have-predicted-that dept

If you don't remember, the momentum around FOSTA/SESTA was that it was going nowhere, until suddenly Facebook did an about face and abruptly (and strongly) supported the bill, leading Congress to incorrectly believe that the tech industry now supported the bill. Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, who became the public face of supporting the bill, insisted that there were no problems with the bill, that it wouldn't create any real problems for internet companies, and that it would be useful in the fight against sex trafficking.

At the time, we pointed out that under the broad definitions in the law, it certainly appeared that Facebook was potentially violating the bill in multiple ways. Even if it turned out that courts rule that the vague language of FOSTA should be construed much more narrowly, the damage is already done, as some companies will have to battle the issue out in court.

And... perhaps not surprisingly... one of the first such cases has been brought against Facebook itself along with Backpage, Backpage's execs and some local motels (hat tip to Eric Goldman). As you can see, it's a "Jane Doe" lawsuit filed against Facebook in Harris County, Texas, and the core of the lawsuit is basically tying Facebook to Backpage:

Social Media companies, websites, and the hotel industry should never place their quest for profits above the public good. Human trafficking has hit epidemic proportions in our communities, and it has had a devastating effect on the victims and a crushing financial effect on our world. Driven by profit, social media giants like Facebook and sex brokers like Backpage have treated children as a commodity.

The participants in this venture of abuse share a value--profit. And the bottom line comes before all else--including the safety of children in our community. Facebook's profic (sic) metric is "connections." Backpage charged fees to broker sex. And hotels, like the one in this lawsuit, look the other way while children, like Jane Doe, are abused, exploited, and made available for sex acts to multiple perpetrators.

While pimps and sex buyers are sometimes criminally prosecuted, the social media companies, hotel industry, and Backpage have been able to escape taking responsibility for the harms and losses they cause these victims and our community. For years, businesses have been providing predators unrestricted means to prey on victims. Not anymore.

The specific issue relating to Facebook is that the plaintiff "Jane Doe" was recruited from Facebook, and that makes it vicariously liable under FOSTA.

The use of Facebook and the Backpage website for the advertising and recruitment of minors for sex was so pervasive and known to Facebook and the Backpage Defendants that it cannot be said such conduct was so unforeseen as to prevent Facebook and the Backpage Defendants from being liable for such conduct. Rather, Facebook and the Backpage Defendants knowingly aided and assisted sex traffickers, including the sex trafficker who recruited Jane Doe from Facebook and posted the advertisements of Jane Doe on the Backpage website. Facebook and the Backpage Defendants knowingly benefited from this illegal and immoral activity.

In a section about the "allegations regarding Facebook" the complaint makes Facebook out as if it were just as bad as Backpage. Here's just a snippet:

With each passing day, the gateway to our community's children is increasingly social media--and Facebook in particular.

People, including children, connecting with their friends, family, and communities are not the only ones passing through Facebook's gateway.

For years now, Facebook has permitted sex traffickers unfiltered access to the most vulnerable members of our society.

It has continually been used to facilitate human trafficking by allowing sex traffickers an unrestricted platform to stalk, exploit, recruit, groom, recruit, and extort children into the sex trade.

And, yes, it says "recruit" twice in there. This is, of course, hogwash. Facebook connects people, but it gives those users a tremendous amount of control over who is able to contact them -- meaning it is hardly "unrestricted." Either way, because of actions of someone else on Facebook, Facebook should be held liable according to this lawsuit:

The Facebook Friend said Jane Doe could make enough money to pay the rent on her own apartment. The Facebook fried offered to pick her up and console her about her disagreement with her mother.

Within hours of meeting the Facebook Friend, photos were taken of Jane Doe and were posted on Backpage, and then was raped, beaten, and forced into further sex trafficking.

Jane Doe had never been made aware of the dangers of sex traffickers on Facebook.

Jane Doe had never been made aware of the warning signs of sex traffickers on Facebook.

During the whole time that Jane Doe's Facebook Friend used Facebook, Facebook took no steps to verify his identity.

To date, Facebook has taken no reasonable steps to mitigate the use of Facebook by sex traffickers or exploiters using its platform.

Millions of minors like Jane Doe remain at risk every day when they simply log onto Facebook.

So... given those details, it certainly seems like there's an obvious criminal case to be brought against this "Facebook friend." Shouldn't that be the focus? Also, there are lots of places to learn how to be safe online. Why is it Facebook's fault that this individual didn't learn the basics of internet safety? The story is sad, obviously, but blaming Facebook for it is ridiculous. But thanks to Facebook's own support of FOSTA, it's at least now possible. In the causes of action, Doe claims that Facebook had a duty to "warn of the dangers of grooming" and failing to do that makes it liable. That seems like a stretch, but again, thanks to FOSTA it's not an open and shut case like it would have been earlier.

Remember, back when some of us pointed out that under FOSTA almost any website might face crushing liability? But supporters of the bill insisted that was a ridiculous read on the bill, because it would only apply to "bad actors" who "knowingly facilitated sex trafficking." We kept being told that this would never apply to sites like Facebook, and even had people tell us that Facebook's own support of the bill somehow "proved" that the law would never be used against Facebook.

And, yet, here we are with Facebook in court, with a victim of sex trafficking claiming that Facebook is liable.

Facebook may get the case tossed -- and hopefully that is the end result -- but it has already created a legal headache for the company, just as many of us predicted back when the bill was being debated. Also, I can't wait for all of those who insisted that FOSTA would never be used against sites like Facebook to either (a) refuse to comment on this or (b) now insist that Facebook was, indeed, a "bad actor" despite denying it during the debate over FOSTA and SESTA.

Filed Under: cda 230, fosta, intermediary liability, section 230, sex trafficking
Companies: backpage, facebook

Legislators Pushing A Patriot Act, But For Human Trafficking In The Wake Of FOSTA

from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept

When you're looking to expand the government's power, any crisis will do. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, legislators told us the terrorists hated us for our freedom. Then they rushed through the Patriot Act, demonstrating how much our own government hates us for our freedoms.

In the name of national security, the government was allowed to engage in warrantless searches (and warrantless wiretapping) as the Fourth Amendment was sacrificed to make way for secure skies and secure borders. More of the same is on tap at the federal level, thanks to another "crisis" -- one mostly manufactured by a number of government officials who want to expand their power in the name of all the trafficked children in the world.

Sex trafficking is the name of the game -- even if the game board seems mostly devoid of players. A number of grandstanders have taken shots at big online services, playing shoot the message board since it's easier to serve Craigslist, Backpage, or whoever than track down actual traffickers.

One of these grandstanders is Rep. Ann Wagner. Wagner has been leading the charge to destroy Section 230 immunity under the pretense of hunting down sex traffickers. Sex traffickers will go on trafficking. They'll just be harder to find. Meanwhile, the web gets worse for everyone as websites become less willing to provide platforms for third-party content.

Wagner has made outrageous claims and pushed hard for outrageous legislation. She was one of the leading forces behind FOSTA. But she's not done yet. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown points out in her excellent article for Reason, Wagner's new bill is another Patriot Act -- but with "human trafficking" standing in for "worldwide terrorism."

Wagner's bill (H.R. 6729)—the deceptively named the "Empowering Financial Institutions to Fight Human Trafficking Act" of 2018—is the latest in a long line of assaults on civil liberties disguised as attacks on the biggest crime panic of the decade, sex trafficking. Wagner alone brought us the SAVE Act in 2015 and FOSTA in 2018, both of which take aim at online anonymity, web publishing, social media, sex workers, and free speech under the guise of saving children from "modern slavery."

Specifically, H.R. 6729 would allow financial institutions, federal regulatory bodies, nonprofit organizations, and law enforcement to share customer bank records between them without running afoul of rules regarding consumer privacy and without opening themselves up to lawsuits. Ostensibly, this would be done "in order to better identify and report potential human trafficking or money laundering activities."

Wagner will strip immunity from websites and serve up immunity to banks. This plan to end sex trafficking isn't being carried out in good faith. Distorted facts, distorted stats, and a whole bunch of made up data is par for the course. So, it makes sense the banks won't have to operate in good faith either.

But these entities need not demonstrate that the "sharing was made on a good faith basis," according to the current text of the bill.

This sounds like legislative encouragement for fishing expeditions -- both by law enforcement and by financial institutions. The Patriot Act's expansion of government power already lowered the bar for law enforcement, allowing it to obtain records without subpoenas or judicial review. This bill expands the Patriot Act's confines past the War on Terror to sweep up anything that could conceivably be imagined as related to human trafficking.

The government has already abused the Patriot Act to investigate strip clubs, as Nolan Brown points out. Dropping the national security pretense will allow government agencies to dig into thousands or millions of additional financial transactions. Anything that looks like overreach will be excused by concern for the children or the supposed wiliness of sex traffickers.

Filed Under: ann wagner, civil liberties, fosta, human trafficking, patriot act, privacy, sex trafficking, surveillance

House Judiciary Committee Falsely Claims Credit For Stopping 90% Of All Sex Trafficking Because Of FOSTA

from the where-did-they-pull-that-stat-from dept

For no clear reason at all, the Republicans* on the House Judiciary Committee released a video on YouTube earlier this week praising themselves for stopping online sex trafficking via FOSTA/SESTA. It's... quite something.

The video makes a number of blatantly false claims from various members of the House Judiciary, but let's focus mainly on the claims of Ann Wagner, whose original bill kicked off the process that became FOSTA/SESTA. She's been spreading moral panic nonsense about sex trafficking and the internet for ages, so it's no surprise that she continues to do so. But, at one point in the video she states:

"We have shut down nearly 90% of the online sex trafficking business and ads."

She kind of swallows that last "and ads" bit so you could miss it, but either way it's utter and complete nonsense. I looked all over for any evidence of the claim that 90% of online sex trafficking has been stopped and there doesn't appear to be an iota of support for that. The only stat I could find that is possibly being twisted to make this argument is that when Backpage was seized earlier this year -- notably before FOSTA/SESTA was signed into law -- a Reuters report claimed that 90% of Backpage's ads were for "adult ads."

But, that in no way translates to Wagner's nutty claim for a whole long list of reasons:

1. Backpage was not the entire online market for sex trafficking ads (amusingly, Wagner admits this earlier in the same video, in which she falsely claims that there were "hundreds and hundreds of websites selling our children with impunity" < -- narrator: "there were not, in fact, hundreds and hundreds of websites doing so, and they were not doing it with impunity."
2. Many of the adult ads on Backpage were not for sex trafficking at all
3. Backpage stopped hosting adult ads a year and a half ago in January of 2017, over a year before SESTA/FOSTA became law and over a year before the site was seized by the feds.
4. And, again, Backpage was seized before SESTA/FOSTA was even signed into law.

So, where, exactly is Wagner getting this stat of having shut down 90% of online sex trafficking and ads because of FOSTA/SESTA?

There's other nonsense in the video as well. Wagner's other whopper was:

"If it's a crime offline, by golly, it's a crime online!"

Uh, yes. But that's always been the case. FOSTA/SESTA didn't change that. All it did was create a series of new crimes for third party tools and services used by not just sex traffickers, but sex workers. Sex trafficking was already illegal and this bill did absolutely nothing to change that. It is simply wrong to imply that FOSTA/SESTA suddenly made something illegal online that had been legal online before but illegal offline. It's not true.

Then there's Mimi Walters' who brought the amendment that combined FOSTA and SESTA, making both bills worse. Her credibility on this whole thing is already suspect, given that after the feds took down Backpage, she took credit for it falsely saying it was because of FOSTA/SESTA even though that bill was not law yet. But, here she is in the video spewing more nonsense:

"This legislation will now make it illegal to sell people online and give those survivors the opportunity to seek justice."

Except it was always illegal to sell people online (and offline!) and nothing in FOSTA/SESTA changed that. All it did was create a new crime in which tools and services used by traffickers could also be found to be criminal in addition to the people who were doing the actual selling of people (while also making it harder for law enforcement to find those people -- but we'll get there). She continues:

"Websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking are no longer immune from legal action."

Except they were never immune from legal action. Facilitating sex trafficking is a federal crime and nothing in CDA 230 contained immunity for federal crimes. It really makes you wonder why the primary "authors" of the bill seem to feel so hard pressed to flat out lie about what their own bill does. Why would they do that?

The video also has Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte with more of his nonsense as well.

"The provisions of this law are already making the internet safer."

[Citation needed] Amusingly, right after Goodlatte says that, the video in an effort to support this claim flips to a news report about the shutdown of Backpage... which (and I know I'm repeating myself here) was taken down without the helps of FOSTA/SESTA since it wasn't even signed into law.

Also, the evidence to date leans heavily against the claim that it has made the internet safer. Indeed, already we've seen reports about sex workers being killed and pimps being empowered now that sex workers can't use sites like Backpage to screen clients. And a big study has highlighted how a lack of such services likely leads to a massive uptick in murder of women (not just sex workers, but women in general). And, lest we forget, police departments themselves are now complaining that they can no longer find sex traffickers thanks to the law.

Notice that the video addresses none of those effects (all of which were widely predicted). It just insists that the internet is safer. This is legislative fantasyland.

Of course, there's another oddity here. Why the hell is the House Judiciary Committee Republicans suddenly putting out such a video? The bill has already passed and it's already doing lots of damage. So why is Congress spending taxpayer money on a professionally edited video talking up a bunch of nonsense? Perhaps, as many have suggested, a key part of FOSTA/SESTA was always about grandstanding about how these politicians are "tough on sex trafficking" even if that's not accurate at all. And now that we're heading towards election season, I guess they have to milk that grandstanding bullshit for all its worth. Go spend your constituents hard-earned tax money by lying to them! What a job!

Of course, another reason for all of this may be the recent lawsuit claiming that FOSTA/SESTA is unconstitutional. While we've written about it already, the stories of some of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit tell the real story of how FOSTA/SESTA is harming people. Among those suing are a national alliance of Asian massage stores, who note that, thanks to FOSTA/SESTA their completely legitimate businesses are now being blocked from advertising, because some falsely assume that any Asian massage stores must be engaged in the sex trade.

...many Internet sites and review platforms flatly refuse content from or about Asian massage providers, DiBenedetto indicated. “Since it’s assumed we’re in the sex trade because we have Asian women offering Asian massage, platforms that used to run our ads and carry our reviews all the time now want nothing to do with us.”

The loss of those online outlets is devastating to providers of Asian massage services, said DiBenedetto. “They are unfairly cutting our stores off from the consumers we need to attract in order to stay viable. The business model of the typical Asian massage store requires a continual inflow of new customers. That inflow is heavily disrupted by us being profiled.”

DiBenedetto said Asian massage studio owners and masseuses now, “go to work every morning wondering if today will be the day their livelihoods vanish because all the doors have been slammed in their faces. This is so demoralizing, not to mention dehumanizing.”

So, to summarize, the House Judiciary Committee appears to be spending taxpayer money on a video celebrating a law that doesn't do what they claim it does, taking credit for a site takedown that wasn't because of the law, making up stats that have no basis in reality, ignoring the fact that their law has put many lives in real danger while making it more difficult for law enforcement to do their job, not to mention harming small business owners at the same time.

And people wonder why Congress' approval rating is so low.

* Our standard practice is not to name the party of politicians unless that's central to the story. In this case, the video is literally coming from a YouTube account that is apparently run by the Republicans on the House Judiciary. And this is not a "Republican v. Democrat" thing, because the Democrats on the Committee also supported FOSTA/SESTA. It was bipartisan nonsense, so if you happen to support the blue team or the red team, stupid generalizing comments about one party or the other will just make you look silly and tribal, rather than insightful or intelligent.

Filed Under: ann wagner, bob goodlatte, fosta, grandstanding, mimi walters, sesta, sex trafficking

DOJ Lets Cops Know SESTA/FOSTA Is For Shutting Down Websites, Not Busting Sex Traffickers

from the work-dumber,-not-harder dept

SESTA/FOSTA was pushed through with the fiction it would be used to target sex traffickers. This obviously was never its intent. It faced pushback from the DOJ and law enforcement agencies because pushing traffickers off mainstream sites would make it much more difficult to track them down. The law was really written for one reason: to take down Backpage and its owners, who had survived numerous similar attempts in the past. The DOJ managed to do this without SESTA, which was still waiting for presidential approval when the feds hits the site's principal executives with a 93-count indictment.

The law is in force and all it's doing is hurting efforts to track down sex traffickers and harming sex workers whose protections were already minimal. Sex traffickers, however, don't appear to be bothered by the new law. But that's because the law wasn't written to target sex traffickers, as a top DOJ official made clear at a law enforcement conference on child exploitation. Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan's comments make it clear SESTA/FOSTA won't be used to dismantle criminal organizations and rescue victims of sex traffickers. It's there to give the government easy wins over websites while sex traffickers continue unmolested.

In April, Backpage.com – the internet’s leading forum to advertise child prostitution – was seized and shut down, thanks to the collective action by CEOS and our federal and state partners. The Backpage website was a criminal haven where sex traffickers marketed their young victims. The Backpage takedown – and the contemporaneous arrests of individuals allegedly responsible for administering the site – struck a monumental blow against child sex traffickers.

But other sites inevitably will seek to fill the void left by Backpage, and we must be vigilant in bringing those criminals to justice as well. With the recent passage of the SESTA-FOSTA legislation, state and local prosecutors are now positioned to more effectively prosecute criminals that host online sex trafficking markets that victimize our children.

"Criminals" that "host sex trafficking markets." That's the target. That's any website that might be used by actual sex traffickers to engage in actual sex trafficking. There's no dedicated web service for sex trafficking -- at least not out in the open where Section 230 immunity used to matter. This is all about taking down websites for hosting any content perceived as sex trafficking-related. It wasn't enough to hang Backpage and its execs. The government will be scanning sites for this content and then targeting the website for content posted by third parties it seems mostly uninterested in pursuing.

Hosts of third-party content are usually easy to find. The actual third parties are far more difficult to track down. Intermediary liability is back. Section 230 is no longer an effective defense. The edges have been trimmed back and the government knows it can rack up easy wins over web hosts and slowly start destroying the web under the facade of saving sex trafficking victims. The DOJ knew this law would make it harder to track down traffickers. But it also knows the law allows it to target websites instead. And here it is touting the law it fought against to a conference full of law enforcement officials, letting them know targeting websites will give them wins and accolades and far fewer headaches than tracking down the individuals actually engaged in illegal activity.

Filed Under: doj, fosta, intermediary liability, jeff sessions, john cronan, sesta, sex trafficking, shutting down websites

Police Realizing That SESTA/FOSTA Made Their Jobs Harder; Sex Traffickers Realizing It's Made Their Job Easier

from the who-could-have-predicted dept

For many months in the discussion over FOSTA/SESTA, some of us tried to explain how problematic the bills were. Much of the focus of those discussions were about the negative impact it would have on free speech on the internet, as the way the bill was drafted would encourage greater censorship and more speech-chilling lawsuits. But as we heard from more and more people, we also realized just how incredibly damaging the bill was going to be to those it was ostensibly designed to protect. Beyond the fact that it was passed based on completely fictional claims about the size of the problem, those who actually were victims of sex trafficking began explaining -- in fairly stark terms -- how SESTA/FOSTA would put them in greater danger and almost certainly lead to deaths.

While supporters of the bill seem to insist that because the bill puts legal liability on platforms that are used for sex trafficking that it will magically make sex trafficking disappear, the reality is more complex. While we can argue about Backpage's complicity in what happened on its platform, for years it was used as a tool to protect sex workers, giving them more control over their lives and who they worked with. As we've pointed in the past, a recent study found that Craigslist, back when it had its "erotic services" section, appeared to decrease female homicide rates by an astounding 17.4%. Backpage picked up the slack when Craigslist was bullied into closing that section, but now it's gone too.

And stories are already coming in about the damage done. A recent episode of the Reply All podcast all about SESTA/FOSTA had some scary stats at the end, noting that there are already many stories of sex workers who have gone missing or been killed since the bill became law.

Motherboard has a story with much more details, noting that the passing of SESTA/FOSTA has emboldened pimps to take advantage of more victims of sex trafficking. As many sex workers had explained, Backpage actually allowed them to have more control themselves, and helped them get away from pimps. But without Backpage?

“Pimps seem to be coming out of the woodwork since this all happened,” Laura LeMoon, a sex trafficking survivor, writer, and co-founder and director of harm reduction nonprofit Safe Night Access Project Seattle, told me in an email. “They’re taking advantage of the situation sex workers are in. This is why I say FOSTA/SESTA have actually increased trafficking. I’ve had pimps contacting me. They’re leeches. They make money off of [sex workers’] misfortune.”

The Verge also has an excellent deep dive into how SESTA/FOSTA has put more women's lives at risk.

What about the claims that SESTA/FOSTA would help law enforcement (many of whom pushed for the law)? Yeah, about that: police are now realizing that it's more difficult for them to find sex traffickers without Backpage. I mean, it's not like people were explaining this a decade ago.

Meanwhile, given how many SETSA/FOSTA supporters insisted that the bill was necessary to prevent the sex trafficking scourge, you'd think that sex trafficking prosecutions and arrests would show an upswing, right? Instead, we see things like how a special court in Delaware set up specifically to focus on dealing with sex trafficking cases is shutting down due to the lack of actual sex trafficking victims. The reason the court was shut down according to the judge who shut it down?

... there was "little evidence to suggest the defendants of this court are the subjects" of sex-trafficking enterprises.

So, I'm still wondering why all of the supporters of SESTA/FOSTA seem to have disappeared off the face of the earth in the last couple months as all of this has happened. Can one of them step forward and actually defend what they've done as the evidence is showing they're literally getting people killed and making it more difficult to stop sex trafficking?

Filed Under: consequences, fosta, intermediary liability, pimps, police, sesta, sex trafficking