Hacker News Reader

Comment by moksly | Hacker News Reader

There are US laws that I can’t remember the names of which make financial institutions legally responsible (probably bad English) for crimes that happen on platforms they sell their services to.

So VISA could be fined for any trafficking that happen on OnlyFans. This is also why Pronhub had to remove almost all their videos if they wanted to keep credit card services.

As an European I’m a fan of laws that make platforms and big tech responsible for the content they house, but there is no denying that vetting that every OnlyFan sexworker is a task they can’t likely perform easily.

Of course moderation is only one of the solutions, paying money and accepting the financial damage that may come from lack of moderation is another. Of course the big banks know this, which is why they charge an insane margin for their credit card services to platforms like onlyfans, it’s likely they simply upped the price behind the closed doors.

View on HN

Facebook reports over one million(!!!) images of child sexual abuse on their platform per year, and that's only the stuff that they identify and find. Clearly it's a platform where a huge amount of illegal materials are being exchanged, yet Visa and MasterCard happily keep Facebook as a client.

>>but there is no denying that vetting that every OnlyFan sexworker is a task they can’t likely perform easily.

Just make every performer submit a valid ID to have an account, if my mobile provider can ask for that, why not OF?

What prevents abuse after posting a valid ID?

Unless you’re paying for the images on Facebook the transfer isn’t being used to pay for illegal sex. This is the difference between the two in terms of liability.

>>What prevents abuse after posting a valid ID?

Nothing, but it should shield them from liability. They can always say a valid ID that shows the user is over 18 was submitted, if there is any legal issue then it can and should be handled by the law enforcement.

>>Unless you’re paying for the images on Facebook the transfer isn’t being used to pay for illegal sex.

Payment processors dropped pornhub because there was some illegal material on the website - it not being paid was irrelevant.

> They can always say a valid ID that shows the user is over 18 was submitted, if there is any legal issue then it can and should be handled by the law enforcement.

That wouldn’t make them less liable for any illegal content they fail to identify though.

It’s not like Facebook where they can hide behind being a platform because American politicians had no issue making platforms very responsible for the hosted content as soon as it was bundled into anti-trafficking legalisation.

I expecte that the EU will strike at “regular” SoMe in much the same manner when the legislation on anti-fake-news passes through the bureaucracy.

Coinbase (and other financial services) do a pretty good job of requiring photo id on signup; I don't know what OF procedure is, but there's definitly precedent.

I'd be interested in the Coinbase verification requirements, do you have a link? Like a lot of Companies these day they don't give that information away before you sign up and agree to their ToS.

It's government provided ID + SSN + photo of yourself + address / personal details. If your gov ID doesn't have your current address you have to show a utility or other bill.

That all wouldn't be good enough for sex crimes though, because even if you have a passport + gov ID + a notary signed statement saying you are 18 and your own mother vouching for you, the counterparty can still be convicted of rape if it turns out you're lying about your age.

Of course this is really all just to keep the law abiding law abiding. Criminals on the dark web will just buy a forged electronic id package and KYC is bypassed.

Sex crimes are often strict liability. You violate the law whether you know or even meant to perform the act or not. For instance, Cody Wilson was sentenced for statutory rape after a sexual encounter with an individual who had a fake ID that stated they were 18, looked 18, and stated they were 18.

That sounds insane and like a failing of a justice system.

A drop in the ocean of failure.

I assume it's because no one wants to be figuring out where the line is for whether a person was "tricked enough" for sex with a minor to be allowed.

I'm just trying to think of an apt comparison - for instance, posession of heroin is a federal crime where the intent doesn't matter, at least the way the law is written. If you are found with a bag of heroin, that's a crime, regardless of what your intentions were.

However, I have a really hard time believing that if you went to a normal grocery store, bought a bag of flour that clearly says "flour" on it, had a receipt for flour, brought it home with the intention of making some bread, and then the police bust down your door and find that actually, it's pure heroin - I doubt you would be convicted. That's why the case above surprises me so much - the guy went above and beyond, by even checking the ID, if anything it's the other person who should be convicted of crime and put behind bars here.

Cody wilson met her through a sugardaddy site. The site requires ID verification but she used a fake ID. Every girl on the site was supposed to be 18. (Turns out she was 16 I believe).

Of course the girl voluntarily went to the site, signed up, and accepted a cash payment. She never even reported anything to the police. She was talking to a school councilor ("Mandatory Reporter") and mentioned she was earning money by sleeping with men. The school councilor was then required to refer it to police for prosecution, even though none of the parties wanted it.

The DA was happy to take it on because Cody Wilson of course is the guy responsible for making 3d printed guns popular, and he had a number of political enemies.

Does that solve the issue though? If you’re trafficking human beings you could probably use their old ID to sign them up and then still commit the crime afterwards.

> There are US laws that I can’t remember the names of which make financial institutions legally responsible (probably bad English) for crimes that happen on platforms they sell their services to.

If it's what I'm thinking of, these laws are collectively known as "know your customer" or "KYC" [0]. It's primarily intended to prevent racketeering, money laundering, and other organized criminal activity, but the laws are written very broadly in part because they're looking for surreptitious activity.

In the case of sex work, it's difficult to verify that all performers are of legal age, that all activity is consensual, and so on. Since there are many, many ways that sex work can be illegal, it's very complicated.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

It’s more than that. Anyone who works for the company can be held personally liable for trafficking and distribution.

> There are US laws that I can’t remember the names of which make financial institutions legally responsible (probably bad English) for crimes that happen on platforms they sell their services to.

How is it enforced? Any high-profile cases?

No idea, I just know about it because I work in the public sector of Denmark where we build our national digital identity system in corporation with banks, and we had a notice of changing terms some time back. I didn’t get too into it because it wouldn’t affect us, but I remember briefing over it because it had some sort of eye catching headline.

>corporation

I think you mean collaboration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com